Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Nov 2021 20:05:31 -0500 | From | Rob Herring <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 11/13] mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx: Add sdhc support for i.MXRT series |
| |
On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 12:30:17AM +0100, Giulio Benetti wrote: > 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
You don't need a driver update if you use a fallback. When you add the 2nd chip, if you think it is 'the same', then you do:
compatible = "fsl,imxrt1024-usdhc", "fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc";
That requires no driver update until the driver needs to handle some difference. And when there is a difference, you don't need a DT update.
You could make "fsl,imxrt-usdhc" the fallback from the start if you are adverse to the first way.
Rob
| |