Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 11/13] mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx: Add sdhc support for i.MXRT series | From | Giulio Benetti <> | Date | Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:30:17 +0100 |
| |
Hi Fabio, Jesse, All,
On 11/3/21 12:25 AM, Jesse Taube wrote: > > > On 11/2/21 19:17, Fabio Estevam wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:57 PM Jesse Taube <mr.bossman075@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> static struct esdhc_soc_data usdhc_imx8qxp_data = { >>> .flags = ESDHC_FLAG_USDHC | ESDHC_FLAG_STD_TUNING >>> @@ -357,6 +363,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id imx_esdhc_dt_ids[] = { >>> { .compatible = "fsl,imx7ulp-usdhc", .data = &usdhc_imx7ulp_data, }, >>> { .compatible = "fsl,imx8qxp-usdhc", .data = &usdhc_imx8qxp_data, }, >>> { .compatible = "fsl,imx8mm-usdhc", .data = &usdhc_imx8mm_data, }, >>> + { .compatible = "fsl,imxrt-usdhc", .data = &usdhc_imxrt_data, }, >> >> I thought Rob suggested to use the SoC name, so this would be: >> > Uh i think that may have been for the UART. >> { .compatible = "fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc", .data = &usdhc_imxrt1050_data, }, >> >> The same applies to the other bindings in the series. >> >> This way it would be possible to differentiate between future >> supported i.MX RT devices. >> > This makes sense will do in V3. >
If we add every SoC we will end up having a long list for every device driver. At the moment it would be 7 parts: 1) imxrt1020 2) imxrt1024 . . . 7) imxrt1170
Is it ok anyway?
Best regards -- Giulio Benetti Benetti Engineering sas
| |