On 26-03-06, Liu Ying wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 11:34:10AM +0000, Laurentiu Palcu wrote:
> > i.MX94 has a single LVDS port and share similar LDB and LVDS control
> > registers as i.MX8MP and i.MX93.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Laurentiu Palcu <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Frank Li <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/fsl,ldb.yaml | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/fsl,ldb.yaml
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/fsl,ldb.yaml
> > index 7f380879fffdf..fb70409161fc0 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/fsl,ldb.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/fsl,ldb.yaml
> > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ properties:
> > - fsl,imx6sx-ldb
> > - fsl,imx8mp-ldb
> > - fsl,imx93-ldb
> > + - fsl,imx94-ldb
>
> Cc'ing Marco.
>
> Recently, Marco said that LDB node should not have a reg property...
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/4sofljffovrorpxe2os3jl745qfjoglvl54oqf3v7r5bk5f6aq@6y3jwn4abiqy/
Yes, this has to be dropped. All variants of this specific "IP" use the
same approach. This "IP" is part of a general purpose register layout
with very loose reg-field definitions: e.g. resets and clk-gatting share
the same register. Or a mux reg-field shares the same register as a
MIPI-{C,D}SI configuration reg-field. Therefore this "IP" is part of a
syscon and should be abstracted as such within the DT.
Regards,
Marco
> > clocks:
> > maxItems: 1
> > @@ -78,6 +79,7 @@ allOf:
> > enum:
> > - fsl,imx6sx-ldb
> > - fsl,imx93-ldb
> > + - fsl,imx94-ldb
> > then:
> > properties:
> > ports:
> >
>
> --
> Regards,
> Liu Ying
--
#gernperDu
#CallMeByMyFirstName
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 |
