On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:37 AM Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 2021/3/10 15:00, Johan Jonker wrote: > > On 3/10/21 4:01 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 09:56:29AM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote: > >>> This patch adds rockchip support in sdhci-of-dwcmhsc.yaml > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> Changes in v3: None > >>> > >>> .../bindings/mmc/snps,dwcmshc-sdhci.yaml | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/snps,dwcmshc-sdhci.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/snps,dwcmshc-sdhci.yaml > >>> index f99fb9f..43989f2 100644 > >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/snps,dwcmshc-sdhci.yaml > >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/snps,dwcmshc-sdhci.yaml > >>> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ allOf: > >>> properties: > >>> compatible: > >>> enum: > > > >>> + - rockchip,dwcmshc-sdhci > > > > Compatible strings are supposed to be SoC orientated. > > What SoC was this change for? rk3568 ? > > Could Shawn confirm that? > > Yes. We are inclined to use this controller from now on for a > long time for up-coming SoCs. Should we tag compatible for rk3568 > specified? One of the negative things I could come up with is that we > do this for dwmmc-rockchip, but we end up doing nothing else, > except for adding new compatible string again and again in Document. Yes, you should make this SoC specific. It's one line patches if nothing else changed. > > > > - rockchip,rk3568-dwcmshc-sdhci ?? I'd shorten it to 'rockchip,rk3568-dwcmshc'. > > > > Could Rob advise here?
