Hi,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 11:47 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 11/07/2022 17:08, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 1:27 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Add a MSM8998-specific SDCC compatible, because using only a generic
> >> qcom,sdhci-msm-v4 fallback is deprecated.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 1 +
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> >> index e395411fb6fd..bb169c1c2b5e 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> >> @@ -2447,6 +2447,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id sdhci_msm_dt_match[] = {
> >> {.compatible = "qcom,msm8992-sdhci", .data = &sdhci_msm_mci_var},
> >> {.compatible = "qcom,msm8994-sdhci", .data = &sdhci_msm_mci_var},
> >> {.compatible = "qcom,msm8996-sdhci", .data = &sdhci_msm_mci_var},
> >> + {.compatible = "qcom,msm8998-sdhci", .data = &sdhci_msm_mci_var},
> >
> > FWIW I'm _against_ this change.
> >
> > In my mind while it is correct to specify both the specific and
> > generic compatible string in the device tree, the driver itself should
> > rely on just the generic compatible string until there is a reason to
> > use the specific one (like we needed to for sdm845 and sc7180).
> >
> > I think I pointed that out before, but somehow all of the specific
> > device tree strings have snuck their way into the driver without me
> > paying attention. :(
>
> I thought it's existing practice for some time, but it's a fresh commit
> 466614a9765c ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Add SoC specific compatibles"). I agree
> that it does not make much sense to add each compatible to the driver,
> so how about reverting 466614a9765c?
That would be my vote.
-Doug
