Hi Fabio, Jesse, All,

On 11/3/21 12:25 AM, Jesse Taube wrote:

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

quoted

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.

quoted

{ .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