On 2/24/2026 7:59 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:

On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 05:58:05PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 12:15:31PM +0100, Ciprian Costea wrote:

quoted

From: Ciprian Marian Costea <ciprianmarian.costea@oss.nxp.com>

Add compatible string "nxp,s32n79-usdhc" for the uSDHC controller found in
NXP S32N79 series automotive SoCs.

The controller is compatible with the existing i.MX uSDHC controllers.

Co-developed-by: Larisa Grigore <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Larisa Grigore <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Marian Costea <ciprianmarian.costea@oss.nxp.com>
---
  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml | 1 +
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml
index b98a84f93277..014b049baeb6 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml

@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ properties:
            - fsl,imx8mm-usdhc
            - fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc
            - nxp,s32g2-usdhc
+          - nxp,s32n79-usdhc

Ditto here, no driver change?

Actually, this doesn't make sense per the commit message "the
controller is compatible with the existing...". I'd expect to see a
fallback compatible permitted in that case.

I can see how my statement mean more that what I've intended.

I've mostly wanted to emphasize that the S32N79 uSDHC controller follows
the same register layout as other i.MX SoCs. But regarding quirks it 
differs from other i.MX uSDHC.

Hence, I will drop this comment from the commit message in V2.

Best Regards,
Ciprian

quoted

quoted

        - items:
            - const: fsl,imx50-esdhc
            - const: fsl,imx53-esdhc
-- 
2.43.0