Thread (7 messages) 7 messages, 2 authors, 2015-02-19

[PATCH 1/2] ARM: shmobile: r8a7794: add MMCIF DT support

From: Sergei Shtylyov <hidden>
Date: 2015-02-19 19:13:42
Also in: linux-devicetree, linux-sh

On 02/19/2015 08:55 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
quoted
quoted
quoted
Define the generic R8A7794 part of the MMCIF0 device node.
quoted
quoted
quoted
Based on the orginal patch by Shinobu Uehara [off-list ref].
quoted
quoted
quoted
Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <redacted>
quoted
quoted
quoted
---
  arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7794.dtsi |   11 +++++++++++
  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
quoted
quoted
quoted
Index: renesas/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7794.dtsi
===================================================================
--- renesas.orig/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7794.dtsi
+++ renesas/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7794.dtsi
@@ -346,6 +346,17 @@
  		status = "disabled";
  	};

+	mmcif0: mmc at ee200000 {
+		compatible = "renesas,mmcif-r8a7794", "renesas,sh-mmcif";
quoted
quoted
Please submit a patch to add "renesas,mmcif-r8a7794" to
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/renesas,mmcif.txt.
I looked and I couldn't find such a change in-tree or in-flight.
quoted
    That file doesn't match the reality at all. It says:
quoted
<<
- compatible: must contain one of the following
         - "renesas,mmcif-r8a7740" for the MMCIF found in r8a7740 SoCs
         - "renesas,mmcif-r8a7790" for the MMCIF found in r8a7790 SoCs
         - "renesas,mmcif-r8a7791" for the MMCIF found in r8a7791 SoCs
         - "renesas,sh-mmcif" for the generic MMCIF
quoted
quoted
quoted
while in reality, the driver only matches on the latter string and doesn't
care for the SoC specific strings.
By documenting the binding in that file it exists and may be used in DT
nodes. It may or may not be used by the driver now or in the future.
    What's the use of binding the driver doesn't understand?
For better or worse this one way that bindings may be handled.
Strictly speaking it shouldn't be used in DT before it exists,
even only in the documentation. But in this case its just a minor
update to an existing scheme so it seems unlikely to be rejected.
    I don't think the minor update will be rejected, I just wanted to say that 
the binding should be edited to better reflect the reality as well. And it 
falls on my shoulders, unfortunately. :-)

WBR, Sergei
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help