From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anton Vorontsov Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:59:59 +0400 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 4/6] fsl_esdhc: Add device tree fixups In-Reply-To: <20090430175752.GA13729@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> References: <20090219154414.GA22391@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20090219154548.GD26618@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <2acbd3e40903061725w1ef3e5d3o4355aac7d42859b8@mail.gmail.com> <20090429212011.GA27603@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20090430175752.GA13729@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> Message-ID: <20090430185959.GA4454@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:57:52PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:20:11AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > > Isn't there a more global means of doing this? I don't like having > > > the 8536/8379 in the driver, itself. > > > > But that's how we prefer bindings nowadays. > > Block version numbers are better, if available. > > > > Actually, there is. Move these to the config file. But there should > > > be a compatible property that works for all esdhc devices. > > > > Starting from MPC83xx/MPC85xx GPIO controllers, we try to differentiate > > 85xx and 83xx parts. I.e. 85xx family doesn't specify 83xx family's > > compatible entries, even if the controllers are compatible. I'm just > > following the trend. > > I must have missed that memo... > > Why would we not recognize the compatibility if it exists? > > > So the current scheme is: > > "fsl,device-", "fsl,device-; > > > > See this discussion: > > > > http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2008-September/062934.html > > Bah. I don't see how it's any more "confusing to show 8610 and 8349 in > the same dev tree" than in is to show, say, 8313 and 8349 in the same > device tree. The concept of component A being compatible with component > B doesn't somehow get mysterious when the systems involved have a > different type of core. I feel a bit dizzy. For a year I thought that we should specify first compatible chip in the last compatible entry, then I've been told that the first compatible chip _in a family_ should be specified and we used this during, say, another six months. And now you're saying that a block version number is preferred. Now all possible compatible naming schemes are used in various device trees for various devices. Can we have a guideline set in a stone that we all agree with? In general, I follow maintainer's opinion, so I'm waiting for Kumar's decision on that matter, and depending on the results I'll modify the bindings and/or patches. -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmailru at gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2