Re: esdhc binding compatiable

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

On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 08:54:28AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> There has been some discussion on various lists about what the binding  
> doc says w/regards to compat binding for eSHDC on 83xx, 85xx, pxxxx.
> 
> My thinking is that we wanted to avoid "fsl,eshdc" as possibly being  
> to generic (some theory that esdhc might be same or similar controller  
> on iMX devices from FSL).  If that's the case I'm thinking something  
> like:

If it's the *same* controller, then it should have the same compatible
(and the same driver).

> fsl,pq-eshdc	(covers 83xx, 85xx family)
> fsl,qoirq-esdhc (covers any new p2xxx, p4xxx, etc..)

And then a new one when marketing changes the name again?  It was first
introduced on a "pq" chip (among those chips which are currently using a
device tree at all), so use "pq" if we need a prefix.

Newer versions could have "qoriq" as a prefix if those versions never
appeared on a "pq" chip.

I'm inclined to leave the prefix off, though, if the block is truly
shared (naming and version numbering intact) across Freescale.

> and if imx needs it
> 
> fsl,imx-esdhc
> 
> this would be the base compatible.  In addition to that we've  
> discussed having a fsl,pq-eshdc-vX.Y compat to match the IP version in  
> the specific SoC.

I think we should only have the versioned compatible (with significant
older but compatible versions listed additionally).  Otherwise it's
not obvious that "fsl,esdhc" is really "fsl,esdhc-v1.0".

-Scott