On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 09:34:57 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Sept 2021 at 20:33, Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Ahmad, > > > > On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 08:54:35 +0200 > > Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hello Andreas, > > > > > > On 24.09.21 11:14, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > > > Binding specification only allows one compatible here. > > > > > > This same change was NACKed by Lucas here: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/72e1194e10ccb4f87aed96265114f0963e805092.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > I also think the schema should be fixed instead. > > > > > well, that argumentation makes sense. Feel free to drop this patch. I > > will not repost the series if it is just about dropping patches. > > The argument of using a new DTB with an old kernel, therefore > prohibiting changes in new DTB, does not make that much sense, except > when caring about other systems which would like to directly reuse the > DTB... anyway it's not that important to fight over it. > hmm, imx6sl_data specifies ESDHC_FLAG_ERR004536 imx6sq_data does not specify it. Than there is ESDHC_FLAG_STD_TUNING vs. ESDHC_FLAG_MAN_TUNING. So it the fsl,imx6q-usdhc really a technically valid fallback compatible? Regards, Andreas
