[PATCH 08/10] mmc: mxs-mmc: add device tree support

[Shawn Guo]

On 13 May 2012 08:11, Chris Ball <cjb at laptop.org> wrote:
> Hi, adding Arnd,
>
> On Sat, May 12 2012, Shawn Guo wrote:
>>> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mxs-mmc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mxs-mmc.txt
>>> > new file mode 100644
>>> > index 0000000..d7c2a40
>>> > --- /dev/null
>>> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mxs-mmc.txt
>>> > @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
>>> > +* Freescale MXS MMC controller
>>> > +
>>> > +The Freescale MXS Synchronous Serial Ports (SSP) can act as a MMC controller
>>> > +to support MMC, SD, and SDIO types of memory cards.
>>> > +
>>> > +Required properties:
>>> > +- compatible: Should be "fsl,<chip>-mmc".  The supported chips include
>>> > +  imx23 and imx28.
>>> > +- reg: Should contain registers location and length
>>> > +- interrupts: Should contain ERROR and DMA interrupts
>>> > +- fsl,ssp-dma-channel: APBH DMA channel for the SSP
>>> > +- fsl,bus-width: Number of data lines, can be <1>, <4>, or <8>
>>>
>>> Please don't use a prefix on "bus-width" -- see Arnd's proposed bindings:
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-March/091993.html
>>>
>> Yes, I've been keeping my eyes on the discussion.  Before that generic
>> bindings get landed, the vendor prefix can be treated as a marker that
>> this is something should use generic binding.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this explanation.  As soon as Arnd's patch
> lands (possibly even for 3.5), we will be making sure that all of the
> bindings are consistently using "bus-width" with no prefix -- that's
> what Arnd's patch does to the existing .dts files.  Why introduce an
> inconsistent binding now that we have to change later, instead of
> getting it right straight away?
>
> I'd like bindings going into mainline to be as correct as possible from
> the moment that they're merged into mainline, because they describe an
> API with the kernel.  The fact that we have some bindings currently in
> the tree that we'll have to change to use the consistent naming scheme
> Arnd proposes is regrettable, not intentional, so we shouldn't be
> planning on doing more of it.  Does that make sense?
>
> I'll take a look at merging Arnd's bindings patch and fixing up the
> review comments on it now; it sounds like we really need to get it
> merged and adopted very soon.
>
In that case, ok, I will remove the prefix right away.

Regards,
Shawn