> From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 8:28 PM
>
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 16:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:21:59PM +0000, Aisheng Dong wrote:
> > > > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 9:17 PM
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 08:53:02PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > > > > The compatible string "fsl,imx8qm-usdhc" was wrongly dropped in
> patch:
> > > > > 80fd350b9590 ("dt-bindings: mmc: fsl-imx-esdhc: Fix i.MX 8
> > > > > compatible
> > > > > matching") Add it back.
> > > >
> > > > Although the compatible was dropped, by why wrongly? Please describe it.
> > > > The compatible is nowhere to be found, it is not used.
> > >
> > > The DT patch using it is still under review. So we need it.
>
> Where? Is there a corresponding update to the mmc driver?
>
> >
> > It looks like other patches here follow similar process of sending and
> > applying dt-bindings separately from patches with users of these
> > bindings. Please don't do it like this. Send the bindings as the first
> > patch in the series implementing the users (so usually the series with
> > driver and DTS changes). The new bindings then are applied by the
> > driver subsystem maintainer.
>
> Yep, I fully agree, that's the preferred approach.
>
> Perhaps it's simply better if the series is reposted to linux-mmc (including the DT
> doc).
I'm going to resend the series with dt-binding patches first.
Thanks for the advice.
Regards
Aisheng
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
