On Thursday 07 February 2013, Simon Horman wrote: > > Please write the binding in a way that does not refer to a specific > > implementation in Linux: The binding should describe the hardware > > independent of details in the driver. In particular, I think you > > should not refer to the TMIO_MMC_BLKSZ_2BYTES etc macros but describe > > in text what the flags are about. > > > > Regarding the toshiba,mmc-wrprotect-disable property, would it be > > enough to just check the presence of the wp-gpios property? > > > > TMIO_MMC_BLKSZ_2BYTES seems to be set unconditionally in > > sh_mobile_sdhi_probe and nowhere else, so I'd assume we don't > > actually need to provide this here, but can keep that knowledge > > implicit based on whether we're talking to sh_mobile_sdhi > > or another tmio_mmc variant. > > > > For the other last one, is that actually board specific, or just > > a feature of a given chip? If we can tell by the SoC, then I'd > > suggest using separate "compatible" properties instead, and > > put a bitmask of features into the .data field of the of match > > table. For all I can tell, SH7372 does not set it, while SH73A0, > > R8A7740 and R8A7779 always do. > > My understanding is that TMIO_MMC_HAS_IDLE_WAIT can be set based > on the SoC in use. Ok, thanks for the confirmation. Just to be clear: Either way (compatible or separate property) works fine and can be used here. I tend to prefer basing these things on the "compatible" string in order to keep specific knowledge of the device internals out of the device tree binding though. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
