From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kumar Gala Subject: esdhc binding compatiable Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 08:54:28 -0500 Message-ID: <54E4E37F-460A-4BB4-9DE1-670360D649A6@kernel.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: 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: Anton Vorontsov Cc: Scott Wood , devicetree-discuss , Phillips Kim-R1AAHA List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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: fsl,pq-eshdc (covers 83xx, 85xx family) fsl,qoirq-esdhc (covers any new p2xxx, p4xxx, etc..) 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. thoughts? - k