From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: w.sang@pengutronix.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:31:56 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3] imx-esdhc: update devices registration In-Reply-To: <4CB47BCF.3060709@eukrea.com> References: <20101012130435.GN29673@pengutronix.de> <1286895505-9325-1-git-send-email-eric@eukrea.com> <20101012150815.GO29673@pengutronix.de> <4CB47BCF.3060709@eukrea.com> Message-ID: <20101012153155.GE4470@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 05:16:31PM +0200, Eric B?nard wrote: > Hi Uwe, > > Le 12/10/2010 17:08, Uwe Kleine-K?nig a ?crit : > >>+#define MX25_MMC_SDHC1_BASE_ADDR 0x53fb4000 > >>+#define MX25_MMC_SDHC2_BASE_ADDR 0x53fb8000 > >I wonder about the name in the reference manual. Is it really MMC_SDHC > >for all socs? I always wonder what it the best here (if they are named > >inconsitently there), have it equal over all SoCs or have it match the > >respective reference manual?! > > > reference manual, section Memory Map : > i.MX25 : eSDHC-x > i.MX35 : eSDHCv2-x > i.MX51 : ESDHC x > > so the manual are not consistent ... "MMC_SDHC" seems easy to > understand but of course we can have ESDHC, or SDHC or something > else if you have a better name to suggest. I'd go for ESDHC, that seems to be the common part in all refmans. (And comparing it to the SDHC-spec, it is also not really a straightforward SDHC anyway ;)) Regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: