Re: esdhc binding compatiable

[Scott Wood <scottwood-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>]

Kim Phillips wrote:
>> I think we should only have the versioned compatible (with significant
>> older but compatible versions listed additionally).  Otherwise it's
> 
> I'd say 'all' instead of 'significant', because one never knows what
> the driver might think significant as it gets developed further down
> the road.

I wanted to leave some room for trimming of what could be an excessively 
long list (which is costly not just in terms of the bits, but in the 
verification of compatibility with each version).

>> not obvious that "fsl,esdhc" is really "fsl,esdhc-v1.0".
> 
> minor nit:  I'd remove the "-v" to make it "fsl,esdhc1.0".  It's really
> no loss of clarity, and it saves space.

I don't really care one way or another about the "v", but I like the 
dash.  It looks a little too smooshed together without it.

-Scott