On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:53:34PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 21/03/2024 16:41, Wadim Mueller wrote: > > Add a compatible string for the SDHC binding of NXP S32G3 platforms. Here > > we use "nxp,s32g2-usdhc" as fallback since the s32g2-usdhc > > driver works also on S32G3 platforms. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wadim Mueller <wafgo01@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml > > index 82eb7a24c857..b42b4368fa4e 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml > > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ properties: > > - fsl,imx8mm-usdhc > > - fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc > > - nxp,s32g2-usdhc > > + - nxp,s32g3-usdhc > > - items: > > - const: fsl,imx50-esdhc > > - const: fsl,imx53-esdhc > > @@ -90,6 +91,9 @@ properties: > > - enum: > > - fsl,imxrt1170-usdhc > > - const: fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc > > + - items: > > + - const: nxp,s32g3-usdhc > > + - const: nxp,s32g2-usdhc > > No, that's just wrong. G3 is not and is compatible with G2? There is no > dualism here. Either it is or it is not. Not both. > I am trying to understand your statement but I am not sure whether I get it right. Let me try to explain what I understand is wrong with this patch. Having nxp,s32g2-usdhc and nxp,s32g2-usdhc in one enum > > - nxp,s32g2-usdhc > > + - nxp,s32g3-usdhc would mean that those are __not__ compatible with each other, whereas the anouther item > > + - items: > > + - const: nxp,s32g3-usdhc > > + - const: nxp,s32g2-usdhc > where both const entries are side by side means that those are compatible. Which is paradox. Is this undersanding correct? So if I want to have the follwing im my DTS for the mmc node usdhc0: mmc@402f0000 { compatible = "nxp,s32g3-usdhc", "nxp,s32g2-usdhc"; ... } The schema update should contain just this part? i@@ -90,6 +90,9 @@ properties: - enum: - fsl,imxrt1170-usdhc - const: fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc + - items: + - const: nxp,s32g3-usdhc + - const: nxp,s32g2-usdhc reg: maxItems: 1 Is this correct? With this patch in place I dont see any issues with an "make CHECK_DTBS=y freescale/s32g399a-rdb3.dtb" as well as "make dt_binding_check dtbs_check" seems to be OK with this. Thanks for your guidence so far, much appreciated! Best Regard Wadim > Best regards, > Krzysztof >