Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] dt-bindings: mmc: fsl-imx-esdhc: add NXP S32G3 support

[Wadim Mueller <wafgo01@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:53:34PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 16:41, Wadim Mueller wrote:
> > Add a compatible string for the SDHC binding of NXP S32G3 platforms. Here
> > we use "nxp,s32g2-usdhc" as fallback since the s32g2-usdhc
> > driver works also on S32G3 platforms.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Wadim Mueller <wafgo01@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml
> > index 82eb7a24c857..b42b4368fa4e 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml
> > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ properties:
> >            - fsl,imx8mm-usdhc
> >            - fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc
> >            - nxp,s32g2-usdhc
> > +          - nxp,s32g3-usdhc
> >        - items:
> >            - const: fsl,imx50-esdhc
> >            - const: fsl,imx53-esdhc
> > @@ -90,6 +91,9 @@ properties:
> >            - enum:
> >                - fsl,imxrt1170-usdhc
> >            - const: fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc
> > +      - items:
> > +          - const: nxp,s32g3-usdhc
> > +          - const: nxp,s32g2-usdhc
> 
> No, that's just wrong. G3 is not and is compatible with G2? There is no
> dualism here. Either it is or it is not. Not both.
>

I am trying to understand your statement but I am not sure whether I get
it right.

Let me try to explain what I understand is wrong with this patch. 

Having nxp,s32g2-usdhc and nxp,s32g2-usdhc in one enum

> >            - nxp,s32g2-usdhc
> > +          - nxp,s32g3-usdhc

would mean that those are 
__not__ compatible with each other, whereas the anouther item

> > +      - items:
> > +          - const: nxp,s32g3-usdhc
> > +          - const: nxp,s32g2-usdhc
> 

where both const entries are side by side means that those are compatible. Which is
paradox. Is this undersanding correct?

So if I want to have the follwing im my DTS for the mmc node

usdhc0: mmc@402f0000 {
			compatible = "nxp,s32g3-usdhc",
				     "nxp,s32g2-usdhc";
				     ...
}

The schema update should contain just this part?

i@@ -90,6 +90,9 @@ properties:
           - enum:
               - fsl,imxrt1170-usdhc
           - const: fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc
+      - items:
+          - const: nxp,s32g3-usdhc
+          - const: nxp,s32g2-usdhc
 
   reg:
     maxItems: 1


Is this correct?

With this patch in place I dont see any issues with an 

"make CHECK_DTBS=y freescale/s32g399a-rdb3.dtb"

as well as "make dt_binding_check dtbs_check" seems to be OK with this.


Thanks for your guidence so far, much appreciated!

Best Regard
Wadim



> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>