On 2/24/2012 5:00 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
On Friday 24 February 2012 12:27 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi
@@ -113,5 +113,31 @@
#size-cells =<0>;
ti,hwmods = "i2c3";
};
+
+ mmc1: mmc@1 {
+ compatible = "ti,omap2-hsmmc";
+ ti,hwmods = "mmc1";
+ ti,dual-volt;
+ };
+
+ mmc2: mmc@2 {
+ compatible = "ti,omap2-hsmmc";
+ ti,hwmods = "mmc2";
+ };
+
+ mmc3: mmc@3 {
+ compatible = "ti,omap2-hsmmc";
+ ti,hwmods = "mmc3";
+ };
+
+ mmc4: mmc@4 {
+ compatible = "ti,omap2-hsmmc";
+ ti,hwmods = "mmc4";
+ };
+
+ mmc5: mmc@5 {
+ compatible = "ti,omap2-hsmmc";
+ ti,hwmods = "mmc5";
+ };
};
};
These all should all be "ti,omap3-hsmmc" I guess?
Well, I defined the binding such that both omap2 and omap3
can use the same compatible "ti,omap2-hsmmc" since there is
no difference in the way they are defined or handled. If thats
confusing, I can have separate compatibles.
Btw, I guess we do the same with a few other re-used IPs as well,
I just checked and mcpsi does the same.
Yes, the goal is mainly to identify the IP version, so since OMAP3 is
using OMAP2 IP, I do not think there is a need to add a new compatible
string for OMAP3. The should only be documented in the binding potentially.
The advantage is that that will avoid adding an extra compatible string
in the driver as well whereas there is no change in the IP.
Regards,
Benoit
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
