[EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add se-fw binding doc

[Pankaj Gupta]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 12:18 PM
> To: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta at nxp.com>
> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org>; Conor Dooley
> <conor at kernel.org>; shawnguo at kernel.org; s.hauer at pengutronix.de;
> kernel at pengutronix.de; clin at suse.com; conor+dt at kernel.org;
> pierre.gondois at arm.com; Jacky Bai <ping.bai at nxp.com>; Clark Wang
> <xiaoning.wang at nxp.com>; Wei Fang <wei.fang at nxp.com>; Peng Fan
> <peng.fan at nxp.com>; Bough Chen <haibo.chen at nxp.com>;
> festevam at gmail.com; dl-linux-imx <linux-imx at nxp.com>;
> davem at davemloft.net; robh+dt at kernel.org;
> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt at linaro.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
> devicetree at vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; Gaurav Jain
> <gaurav.jain at nxp.com>; alexander.stein at ew.tq-group.com; Sahil Malhotra
> <sahil.malhotra at nxp.com>; Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong at nxp.com>; Varun
> Sethi <V.Sethi at nxp.com>
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add se-fw binding
> doc
> 
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 06:37:22AM +0000, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> > > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org> On
> > > 12/07/2023 20:26, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 05:42:13PM +0530, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> 
> > > >> +  value, i.e., supported SoC(s) are imx8ulp, imx93.
> 
> > > >> +
> > > >> +properties:
> > > >> +  compatible:
> > > >> +    enum:
> > > >> +      - fsl,imx-ele
> > > >
> > > > This looks like a generic compatible, not a specific one, but you
> > > > use it on the imx8ulp. I would have expected that you would have
> > > > something like "fsl,imx8ulp-ele" for that.
> > >
> > > Yeah, this one looks generic, so not what we expect.
> >
> > This change left un-changed in V4. It is "fsl,se-fw", instead of "fsl,imx8ulp-
> ele".
> > I will change in V5.

> 
> That's a generic compatible too, so no different to "fsl,imx-ele".
> What is the reason for avoiding the SoC-specific "fsl,imx8ulp-ele"?

Sorry. I missed this point.
Not trying to avoid the SoC specific compatible. I will add the soc id to make the compatible = "fsl,se-8ulpfw", instead of "fsl,se-fw".

Thanks for pointing out here.

> 
> > > >> +      - fsl,imx93-ele