Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] dt-bindings: mmc: renesas,sdhi: Document RZ/V2H(P) support

[Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 at 11:32, Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Geert,
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 10:11 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Prabhakar,
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 8:22 PM Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> > >
> > > The SD/MMC block on the RZ/V2H(P) ("R9A09G057") SoC is similar to that
> > > of the R-Car Gen3, but it has some differences:
> > > - HS400 is not supported.
> > > - It has additional SD_STATUS register to control voltage,
> > >   power enable and reset.
> > > - It supports fixed address mode.
> > >
> > > To accommodate these differences, a SoC-specific 'renesas,sdhi-r9a09g057'
> > > compatible string is added.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> > > ---
> > > v4->v5
> > > - Dropped regulator node.
> >
> > Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 32842af74abc8ff9
> > ("dt-bindings: mmc: renesas,sdhi: Document RZ/V2H(P) support") in
> > mmc/next.
> >
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/renesas,sdhi.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/renesas,sdhi.yaml
> > > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ properties:
> > >            - renesas,sdhi-r7s9210 # SH-Mobile AG5
> > >            - renesas,sdhi-r8a73a4 # R-Mobile APE6
> > >            - renesas,sdhi-r8a7740 # R-Mobile A1
> > > +          - renesas,sdhi-r9a09g057 # RZ/V2H(P)
> > >            - renesas,sdhi-sh73a0  # R-Mobile APE6
> > >        - items:
> > >            - enum:
> > > @@ -66,6 +67,7 @@ properties:
> > >                - renesas,sdhi-r9a07g054 # RZ/V2L
> > >                - renesas,sdhi-r9a08g045 # RZ/G3S
> > >                - renesas,sdhi-r9a09g011 # RZ/V2M
> > > +              - renesas,sdhi-r9a09g057 # RZ/V2H(P)
> >
> > This looks wrong to me.
> > Did you want to add it to the clocks constraint, like the third hunk
> > in v4[1], and was it mangled in a rebase?
> >
> Oouch, yes you are correct, this had to go in the clock constraint.

I am happy to apply a fix on top for that.

Kind regards
Uffe