From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: cjb@laptop.org (Chris Ball) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:41:30 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 6/7] MMC: mmci: Enable Device Tree support for ux500 variants In-Reply-To: <201204091427.19110.arnd@arndb.de> (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:27:18 +0000") References: <1333619748-16126-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <4F7DA1DE.2030203@linaro.org> <20120406041401.28A993E0BC4@localhost> <201204091427.19110.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <87wr5px90l.fsf@laptop.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On Mon, Apr 09 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Agreed. > > Should we use max-frequency or clock-frequency for sdhci though? It looks > like this is both the maximum frequency that it can use and the base frequency > that the actual clock rate is derived from (can be a fraction). This is ultimately setting the "f_max" ("maximum operating frequency") field in the MMC core, so I'm happy naming the property "max-frequency". It's true that this doesn't explain the derivation to clock rate -- but we weren't doing that before the DT binding either, and I think that having a discrepancy between the DT property and the core's naming would lead to confusion/mistakes. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child