From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: esdhc binding compatiable Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 16:11:10 -0500 Message-ID: <20090504211110.GC28413@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> References: <54E4E37F-460A-4BB4-9DE1-670360D649A6@kernel.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54E4E37F-460A-4BB4-9DE1-670360D649A6-XVmvHMARGAS8U2dJNN8I7kB+6BGkLq7r@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: Kumar Gala Cc: Anton Vorontsov , Phillips Kim-R1AAHA , devicetree-discuss List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.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