[PATCH RESEND v4 1/3] dt-bindings: lcdif: Document a imx6sx-lcdif fallback

[Ahmad Fatoum]

Hi,

On 04.11.25 21:44, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:53 PM Liu Ying <victor.liu at nxp.com> wrote:
>> On 10/20/2025, Fabio Estevam wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 1:12 AM Liu Ying <victor.liu at nxp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Strictly speaking, I don't think i.MX6SX LCDIF is compatible with i.MX28 LCDIF
>>>> because at least i.MX28 LCDIF has the version and debug{0,1,2} registers(at
>>>> 0x1c0, 0x1d0, 0x1e0 and 0x1f0) while i.MX6SX LCDIF hasn't.

Thanks for pointing this out. In my opinion, these registers are auxiliary
and don't really change the compatibility situation as a functional driver
can be written without their use, evidenced by the Linux driver doing just
fine without using these registers.

>>> There are some DT users, such as Barebox that matches against
>>> fsl,imx28-lcdif, so we cannot remove it.
>>
>> Hmmm, it looks like software projects like Barebox don't really follow this DT
>> binding.  Is it possible to fix Barebox to avoid changing this DT binding by
>> this patch?  I'm assuming that Uboot has already been fixed.
> > What do you think?

I am sorry my prior feedback ended up stalling this series.

There is a lot of regressions happening due to upstream DT changes and I am
just trying to raise awareness. Another example I stumbled over today:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/91f764ab-bec1-4791-b01b-3ba0803ce8f8@pengutronix.de/


I have submitted a patch[1] to barebox adding explicit i.MX6 SoloX support,
so, having expressed my opinion above, please proceed as you see fit.

[1]: https://lore.barebox.org/barebox/20251107210033.2229781-3-a.fatoum@barebox.org/

Cheers,
Ahmad

> 
> Thanks
> 


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |