On Friday 24 February 2012 06:32 PM, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
On 2/24/2012 1:58 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
On Friday 24 February 2012 06:21 PM, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
On 2/24/2012 12:35 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
On Friday 24 February 2012 05:02 PM, T Krishnamoorthy, Balaji wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Rajendra Nayak<rnayak@xxxxxx> wrote:
...
+Required properties:
+- compatible:
+ Should be "ti,omap2-hsmmc", for OMAP2/3 controllers
omap_hsmmc is applicable for omap2430 and omap3.
omap2420 has non high speed controller mmci-omap -
drivers/mmc/host/omap.c
May be omap3-hsmmc compatible with omap2430 ?
Agree. I think its best in that case for me to define a
compatible "ti,omap2430-hsmmc" for omap2430 and "ti,omap3-hsmmc"
for omap3. Though the IP blocks are same, I cant think of some
common compatible string without causing confusion.
It depends, can we detect that using HW revision?
We don't need to. The driver does not do anything different for
2430 or omap3.
I was thinking of OMAP2420 vs OMAP2430. But I'm now wondering if we are
using the same driver for the non-HS controller?
No, we don't. there is a different driver for 2420.
In that case, there is no need to differentiate again with compatible.
Thats perfectly fine. But what *common* compatible string would you
use?
I think that "ti,omap2-hsmmc" is still fine, because OMAP2420 will have
"ti,omap2-mmc" and thus we can differentiate the 2 versions.
Does that make sense?
yup, that makes sense. So I don't need to change anything :-)
Regards,
Benoit
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
