From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: b-cousson@ti.com (Cousson, Benoit) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:02:36 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 1/4] mmc: omap_hsmmc: Convert hsmmc driver to use device tree In-Reply-To: <4F478963.20009@ti.com> References: <1329998490-27555-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <1329998490-27555-2-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <4F4775FF.2090500@ti.com> <4F4787C3.1010507@ti.com> <4F478963.20009@ti.com> Message-ID: <4F478A6C.2060006@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2/24/2012 1:58 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > On Friday 24 February 2012 06:21 PM, Cousson, Benoit wrote: >> On 2/24/2012 12:35 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >>> On Friday 24 February 2012 05:02 PM, T Krishnamoorthy, Balaji wrote: >>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote: ... >>>>> +Required properties: >>>>> +- compatible: >>>>> + Should be "ti,omap2-hsmmc", for OMAP2/3 controllers >>>> >>>> omap_hsmmc is applicable for omap2430 and omap3. >>>> omap2420 has non high speed controller mmci-omap - >>>> drivers/mmc/host/omap.c >>>> May be omap3-hsmmc compatible with omap2430 ? >>> >>> Agree. I think its best in that case for me to define a >>> compatible "ti,omap2430-hsmmc" for omap2430 and "ti,omap3-hsmmc" >>> for omap3. Though the IP blocks are same, I cant think of some >>> common compatible string without causing confusion. >> >> It depends, can we detect that using HW revision? > > We don't need to. The driver does not do anything different for > 2430 or omap3. I was thinking of OMAP2420 vs OMAP2430. But I'm now wondering if we are using the same driver for the non-HS controller? >> In that case, there is no need to differentiate again with compatible. > > Thats perfectly fine. But what *common* compatible string would you > use? I think that "ti,omap2-hsmmc" is still fine, because OMAP2420 will have "ti,omap2-mmc" and thus we can differentiate the 2 versions. Does that make sense? Regards, Benoit