From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: esdhc binding compatiable Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 20:07:23 -0500 Message-ID: <49FF914B.1080909@freescale.com> References: <54E4E37F-460A-4BB4-9DE1-670360D649A6@kernel.crashing.org> <20090504211110.GC28413@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <20090504193416.7ec102bd.kim.phillips@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090504193416.7ec102bd.kim.phillips-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org To: Kim Phillips Cc: Anton Vorontsov , devicetree-discuss List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.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