The 'fsl,imx23-icoll' and 'fsl,imx28-icoll' are not used at any place
in the Linux kernel - instead for imx2[38] the 'fsl,icoll' is used.

Hence, it is possible to remove them.

Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <lukma@denx.de>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/mxs/imx23.dtsi | 2 +-
 arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/mxs/imx28.dtsi | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/mxs/imx23.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/mxs/imx23.dtsi
index 0309592af1e1..914cb6b9cf5a 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/mxs/imx23.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/mxs/imx23.dtsi
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ apbh@80000000 {
 			ranges;
 
 			icoll: interrupt-controller@80000000 {
-				compatible = "fsl,imx23-icoll", "fsl,icoll";
+				compatible = "fsl,icoll";
 				interrupt-controller;
 				#interrupt-cells = <1>;
 				reg = <0x80000000 0x2000>;
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/mxs/imx28.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/mxs/imx28.dtsi
index 73ca903b8723..656260c2ae88 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/mxs/imx28.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/mxs/imx28.dtsi
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ apbh@80000000 {
 			ranges;
 
 			icoll: interrupt-controller@80000000 {
-				compatible = "fsl,imx28-icoll", "fsl,icoll";
+				compatible = "fsl,icoll";
 				interrupt-controller;
 				#interrupt-cells = <1>;
 				reg = <0x80000000 0x2000>;
-- 
2.39.2

On 28/08/2024 11:35, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> The 'fsl,imx23-icoll' and 'fsl,imx28-icoll' are not used at any place
> in the Linux kernel - instead for imx2[38] the 'fsl,icoll' is used.
> 
> Hence, it is possible to remove them.

Preference is to have SoC-specific compatibles in the front, so instead
of dropping it, these should be documented as bindings.

imx23 and imx28 are quite old platforms, so I think no one really cared
about dtbs_check and their bindings. If the platform is being actively
used (as judging by your contributions) then some bigger cleanup could
be useful. Also, drop your email somewhere in the files or maintainer
entry, so we will know whom to ping when asking for platform removal.

But if there is no product on imx23/28, then I am afraid it might be
wasted effort - isn't it planned for deprecation/removal by Arnd?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Hi Krzysztof,

> On 28/08/2024 11:35, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > The 'fsl,imx23-icoll' and 'fsl,imx28-icoll' are not used at any
> > place in the Linux kernel - instead for imx2[38] the 'fsl,icoll' is
> > used.
> > 
> > Hence, it is possible to remove them.  
> 
> Preference is to have SoC-specific compatibles in the front, so
> instead of dropping it, these should be documented as bindings.
> 
> imx23 and imx28 are quite old platforms, so I think no one really
> cared about dtbs_check and their bindings. If the platform is being
> actively used (as judging by your contributions) then some bigger
> cleanup could be useful. Also, drop your email somewhere in the files
> or maintainer entry, so we will know whom to ping when asking for
> platform removal.\

> 
> But if there is no product on imx23/28, then I am afraid it might be
> wasted effort - isn't it planned for deprecation/removal by Arnd?
> 

I cannot say about imx23, but for sure imx287 will stay with us for
many, many years.

imx287 (arm9) is still in active production, for extended life time
devices...

It is just pervasive in the industry.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 




Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

--

DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Erika Unter
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-59 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: lukma@denx.de

Hi Lukasz,

thanks for taking care of MXS DT issues.

Am 28.08.24 um 17:33 schrieb Lukasz Majewski:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
>> On 28/08/2024 11:35, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
>>> The 'fsl,imx23-icoll' and 'fsl,imx28-icoll' are not used at any
>>> place in the Linux kernel - instead for imx2[38] the 'fsl,icoll' is
>>> used.
>>>
>>> Hence, it is possible to remove them.
>> Preference is to have SoC-specific compatibles in the front, so
>> instead of dropping it, these should be documented as bindings.
+1

We cannot conclude that nobody is using these compatibles.
>>
>> imx23 and imx28 are quite old platforms, so I think no one really
>> cared about dtbs_check and their bindings. If the platform is being
>> actively used (as judging by your contributions) then some bigger
>> cleanup could be useful. Also, drop your email somewhere in the files
>> or maintainer entry, so we will know whom to ping when asking for
>> platform removal.\
>> But if there is no product on imx23/28, then I am afraid it might be
>> wasted effort - isn't it planned for deprecation/removal by Arnd?
>>
> I cannot say about imx23, but for sure imx287 will stay with us for
> many, many years.
>
> imx287 (arm9) is still in active production, for extended life time
> devices...
>
> It is just pervasive in the industry.
I can confirm this.

Best regards