On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 09:41:01 +0100 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/01/2023 22:38, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > Currently make dtbs_check shows lots of errors because imx*.dtsi does > > not use single compatibles but combinations of them. > > Allow all the combinations used there. > > > > Patches fixing the dtsi files according to binding documentation were > > submitted multiple times and are commonly rejected, so relax the rules. > > Example: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/72e1194e10ccb4f87aed96265114f0963e805092.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Reason: compatibility of new dtbs with old kernels or bootloaders. > > > > This will significantly reduce noise on make dtbs_check. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml | 24 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml > > index dc6256f04b42..118ebb75f136 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml > > @@ -37,6 +37,30 @@ properties: > > - fsl,imx8mm-usdhc > > - fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc > > - nxp,s32g2-usdhc > > You must drop the items from enum above. Binding saying: > compatible="A" > or: > compatible="A", "B" > > is not correct. Either A is or is not compatible with B. > hmm, here we have A = B + some additional features or A = B + some additional features and additional quirks required. For the latter we have e.g. A= static const struct esdhc_soc_data usdhc_imx6sx_data = { .flags = ESDHC_FLAG_USDHC | ESDHC_FLAG_STD_TUNING | ESDHC_FLAG_HAVE_CAP1 | ESDHC_FLAG_HS200 | ESDHC_FLAG_STATE_LOST_IN_LPMODE | ESDHC_FLAG_BROKEN_AUTO_CMD23, }; B= static const struct esdhc_soc_data usdhc_imx6sl_data = { .flags = ESDHC_FLAG_USDHC | ESDHC_FLAG_STD_TUNING | ESDHC_FLAG_HAVE_CAP1 | ESDHC_FLAG_ERR004536 | ESDHC_FLAG_HS200 | ESDHC_FLAG_BROKEN_AUTO_CMD23, }; so there is the difference in ESDHC_FLAG_STATE_LOST_IN_LPMODE. That might make no difference in some usage scenario (e.g. some bootloader not doing any LPMODE), but I wonder why we need to *enforce* specifying such half-compatible things. Regards, Andreas
