On 11/2/21 19:17, Fabio Estevam wrote:

On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:57 PM Jesse Taube [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

  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.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel