On 3/4/25 3:35 AM, Alice Guo (OSS) wrote:
[...]
+static const struct udevice_id ids[] = {
+ { .compatible = "fsl,imx6sx-mu", .data = (ulong)&imx_mu_cfg_imx6sx },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,imx7ulp-mu", .data = (ulong)&imx_mu_cfg_imx7ulp },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,imx8ulp-mu", .data = (ulong)&imx_mu_cfg_imx8ulp },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,imx95-mu", .data = (ulong)&imx_mu_cfg_imx95 },
Wouldn't it be useful to include also fsl,imx95-mu-ele and fsl,imx95-mu-v2x for
iMX95 ? Esp. the ELE is something which surely is present due to the AHAB
container, right ?
The compatible " fsl,imx8ulp-mu" used by i.MX8ULP MU is incorrect. Will modify
it in the next version.
OK
The driver of i.MX95 ELE MU is in drivers/misc/imx_ele/ele_mu.c.
Why does Linux use MU driver for the ELE , while U-Boot has some
separate driver ?
No need to add the driver for i.MX95 MU V2X in U-Boot.
How so ?
