On Friday 09 March 2012 11:16 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:49:00 -0800, Tony Lindgren<tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
* Rajendra Nayak<rnayak@xxxxxx> [120223 19:29]:
On Friday 24 February 2012 12:27 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi
@@ -113,5 +113,31 @@
#size-cells =<0>;
ti,hwmods = "i2c3";
};
+
+ mmc1: mmc@1 {
+ compatible = "ti,omap2-hsmmc";
+ ti,hwmods = "mmc1";
+ ti,dual-volt;
+ };
+
+ mmc2: mmc@2 {
+ compatible = "ti,omap2-hsmmc";
+ ti,hwmods = "mmc2";
+ };
+
+ mmc3: mmc@3 {
+ compatible = "ti,omap2-hsmmc";
+ ti,hwmods = "mmc3";
+ };
+
+ mmc4: mmc@4 {
+ compatible = "ti,omap2-hsmmc";
+ ti,hwmods = "mmc4";
+ };
+
+ mmc5: mmc@5 {
+ compatible = "ti,omap2-hsmmc";
+ ti,hwmods = "mmc5";
+ };
};
};
These all should all be "ti,omap3-hsmmc" I guess?
Well, I defined the binding such that both omap2 and omap3
can use the same compatible "ti,omap2-hsmmc" since there is
no difference in the way they are defined or handled. If thats
confusing, I can have separate compatibles.
Btw, I guess we do the same with a few other re-used IPs as well,
I just checked and mcpsi does the same.
Yeah let's use separate compatibles to avoid confusion.
For omap2 we also have the ti,omap2-mmc in addition to
ti,omap2-hsmmc..
Yes, absolutely use separate compatible values. It is always important
to be specific as to the silicon implementing the IP. The omap3 instance
can also carry the omap2 string in its compatible list:
compatible = "ti,omap3-hsmmc", "ti,omap2-hsmmc";
Sure, will repost with seperate compatible strings. Also missed adding
the 'status = "disable";' for unused mmc blocks in the board .dts file
causing unused mmc modules to get probed too. Will fix that as well.
thanks,
Rajendra
g.
--
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
