On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 03:45:37PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 08.06.19 um 21:53 schrieb Manivannan Sadhasivam: > > Add devicetree binding for Actions Semi Owl SoC's SD/MMC/SDIO controller. > > > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../devicetree/bindings/mmc/owl-mmc.txt | 37 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/owl-mmc.txt > > Rob, should this be YAML now? Would be nice and might get reviewed faster, but I'll leave that to Ulf to start requiring. > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/owl-mmc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/owl-mmc.txt > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..a702f8d66cec > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/owl-mmc.txt > > @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ > > +Actions Semi Owl SoCs SD/MMC/SDIO controller > > + > > +Required properties: > > +- compatible: should be "actions,owl-mmc" > > +- reg: offset and length of the register set for the device. > > +- interrupts: single interrupt specifier. > > +- clocks: single clock specifier of the controller clock. > > +- resets: phandle to the reset line. > > +- dma-names: should be "mmc". > > +- dmas: single DMA channel specifier > > I recall the main blocker for MMC being regulators, i.e. the I²C > attached multi-function PMIC. Yet I don't see any such required property > here, nor any patch series implementing it. Seems like this relies on > U-Boot having initialized SD/eMMC? Do you intend to make them optional > or did you want to hold off merging this one until the rest is done? > > > + > > +Optional properties: > > +- pinctrl-names: pinctrl state names "default" must be defined. > > +- pinctrl-0: phandle referencing pin configuration of the controller. > > +- bus-width: see mmc.txt > > +- cap-sd-highspeed: see mmc.txt > > +- cap-mmc-highspeed: see mmc.txt > > +- sd-uhs-sdr12: see mmc.txt > > +- sd-uhs-sdr25: see mmc.txt > > +- sd-uhs-sdr50: see mmc.txt > > +- non-removable: see mmc.txt > > I'm not convinced duplicating common properties is a good idea here, in > particular pinctrl. The main value is to define which common properties are valid for this binding (and by omission which ones aren't valid). Rob _______________________________________________ linux-actions mailing list linux-actions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-actions
