From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from AM1EHSOBE002.bigfish.com (am1ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.205]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "Microsoft Secure Server Authority" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61675B6FA9 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 04:37:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail56-am1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail56-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8C3100391 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:37:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from AM1EHSMHS020.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.201.244]) by mail56-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D530640048 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:37:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F048E5F.1050509@freescale.com> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:37:35 -0600 From: Scott Wood MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Huang Changming-R66093 Subject: Re: [PATCH] DTS: fix the bug and add the chip compatible for eSDHC References: <1324620659-7135-1-git-send-email-r66093@freescale.com> <4F01F721.7090407@freescale.com> <8A2FC72B45BB5A4C9F801431E06AE48F1165E56C@039-SN1MPN1-005.039d.mgd.msft.net> In-Reply-To: <8A2FC72B45BB5A4C9F801431E06AE48F1165E56C@039-SN1MPN1-005.039d.mgd.msft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 01/03/2012 09:11 PM, Huang Changming-R66093 wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wood Scott-B07421 >> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 2:28 AM >> To: Huang Changming-R66093 >> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Huang Changming-R66093 >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] DTS: fix the bug and add the chip compatible for >> eSDHC >> >> On 12/23/2011 12:10 AM, r66093@freescale.com wrote: >>> From: Jerry Huang >>> >>> Accordint to latest kernel, the auto-cmd12 property should be >>> "sdhci,auto-cmd12", and according to the SDHC binding and the >>> workaround for the special chip, add the chip compatible for eSDHC: >>> "fsl,p1022-esdhc", "fsl,mpc8536-esdhc", "fsl,p2020-esdhc" and >> "fsl,p1010-esdhc". >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jerry Huang >>> --- >>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/mpc8536si-post.dtsi | 4 ++++ >>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p1010si-post.dtsi | 3 ++- >>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p1022si-post.dtsi | 3 ++- >>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p2020si-post.dtsi | 4 ++++ >>> 4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/mpc8536si-post.dtsi >>> b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/mpc8536si-post.dtsi >>> index 89af626..44e0ed9 100644 >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/mpc8536si-post.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/mpc8536si-post.dtsi >>> @@ -236,6 +236,10 @@ >>> }; >>> >>> /include/ "pq3-esdhc-0.dtsi" >>> + sdhc@2e000 { >>> + compatible = "fsl,esdhc", "fsl,mpc8536-esdhc"; >>> + }; >> >> More-specific compatible entries should come first. > > I don't understand you, why more-specific compatible entries should come? Because the binding says so, as do ePAPR and the IEEE1275 generic names recommendation. It is relied on by some OS driver binding mechanisms to resolve ambiguity in the event that drivers are present for both strings. > The Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-esdhc.txt has introduced it: > - compatible : should be > "fsl,-esdhc", "fsl,esdhc" > I don't think I should introduce new entries. > I'm not asking you to introduce a new entry. I'm asking you to reverse them as the above text specifies: compatible = "fsl,mpc8536-esdhc", "fsl,esdhc"; not: compatible = "fsl,esdhc", "fsl,mpc8536-esdhc"; -Scott