From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] DT: bindings: remove bcm2835-sdhci Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:59:36 -0600 Message-ID: <57644898.60402@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1464983233-27001-1-git-send-email-stefan.wahren@i2se.com> <1464983233-27001-2-git-send-email-stefan.wahren@i2se.com> <5751E1F1.5020202@wwwdotorg.org> <1995060523.43076.c268f06d-da3c-427e-800f-fbc65895c323.open-xchange@email.1und1.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:45150 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752021AbcFQS7n (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:59:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1995060523.43076.c268f06d-da3c-427e-800f-fbc65895c323.open-xchange@email.1und1.de> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Stefan Wahren Cc: Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Ulf Hansson , Pawel Moll , Lee Jones , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, Adrian Hunter , Eric Anholt , Rob Herring , linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On 06/09/2016 12:11 PM, Stefan Wahren wrote: > Hi Stephen, > >> Stephen Warren hat am 3. Juni 2016 um 22:00 >> geschrieben: >> >> >> On 06/03/2016 01:47 PM, Stefan Wahren wrote: >>> The sdhci-iproc also supports bcm2835. So this binding is obsolete. >> >> sdhci-iproc supports this binding, so I don't believe the binding is >> obsolete. The duplicate implementations (drivers) can possibly be >> removed, but not the binding doc, which is (or at least could be) still >> in use. > > sorry for my late reply. > > So the brcm,bcm2835-sdhci.txt must be kept, even if the compatible string > "brcm,bcm2835-sdhci" has been added to brcm,sdhci-iproc.txt? Sorry for the slow reply; I was on vacation. So, if the binding documentation has been collapsed into the other binding document, then it's OK to remove this one. I took a look at the iproc binding doc and it looks completely compatible with this removed binding doc, so I think this patch is OK. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:59:36 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] DT: bindings: remove bcm2835-sdhci In-Reply-To: <1995060523.43076.c268f06d-da3c-427e-800f-fbc65895c323.open-xchange@email.1und1.de> References: <1464983233-27001-1-git-send-email-stefan.wahren@i2se.com> <1464983233-27001-2-git-send-email-stefan.wahren@i2se.com> <5751E1F1.5020202@wwwdotorg.org> <1995060523.43076.c268f06d-da3c-427e-800f-fbc65895c323.open-xchange@email.1und1.de> Message-ID: <57644898.60402@wwwdotorg.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 06/09/2016 12:11 PM, Stefan Wahren wrote: > Hi Stephen, > >> Stephen Warren hat am 3. Juni 2016 um 22:00 >> geschrieben: >> >> >> On 06/03/2016 01:47 PM, Stefan Wahren wrote: >>> The sdhci-iproc also supports bcm2835. So this binding is obsolete. >> >> sdhci-iproc supports this binding, so I don't believe the binding is >> obsolete. The duplicate implementations (drivers) can possibly be >> removed, but not the binding doc, which is (or at least could be) still >> in use. > > sorry for my late reply. > > So the brcm,bcm2835-sdhci.txt must be kept, even if the compatible string > "brcm,bcm2835-sdhci" has been added to brcm,sdhci-iproc.txt? Sorry for the slow reply; I was on vacation. So, if the binding documentation has been collapsed into the other binding document, then it's OK to remove this one. I took a look at the iproc binding doc and it looks completely compatible with this removed binding doc, so I think this patch is OK.