On 15 January 2015 at 17:58, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 01:02:08PM +0000, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> The simple MMC power sequence provider, intends to supports a set of
>> common properties between SOC designs. It thus enables us to re-use the
>> same provider for several SOCs.
>>
>> In this initial step, let's add the top level description of the MMC
>> power sequence and describe the compatible string for the simple MMC
>> power sequence provider.
>>
>> Following patches will step by step add support for new properties to
>> the simple MMC power sequence provider.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - None.
>>
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc,pwrseq-simple.txt | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc.txt | 5 +++++
>> 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc,pwrseq-simple.txt
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc,pwrseq-simple.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc,pwrseq-simple.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..e1b7f9c
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc,pwrseq-simple.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>> +* The simple MMC power sequence provider
>> +
>> +System on chip designs may specify a specific MMC power sequence. To
>> +successfully detect an (e)MMC/SD/SDIO card, that power sequence must be
>> +maintained while initializing the card.
>> +
>> +The simple MMC power sequence provider, intends to supports a set of common
>> +properties between SOC designs. It thus enables us to re-use the same provider
>> +for several SOC designs.
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> +- compatible : contains "mmc,pwrseq-simple".
>
> Nit: "mmc" is not a vendor prefix.
>
>> +
>> +Example:
>> +
>> + sdhci0_pwrseq {
>> + compatible = "mmc,pwrseq-simple";
>> + }
>
> I'm a little confused here. What specific sequence is described by this
> node? We don't appear to have referred to any resources used as part of
> that sequence, and the description above only mentions that there could
> be a specific sequence, not what that sequence is.
>
> So I don't think this makes sense on its own, and should probably be
> folded with patches adding the initial support for the resources used as
> part of the sequence (e.g. the GPIOs added in a later patch).
You are absolutely right. I fix it.
Again, thanks for reviewing.
Kind regards
Uffe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
