[PATCH v2 11/13] mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx: Add sdhc support for i.MXRT series

[Giulio Benetti]

Hi Fabio, Jesse, All,

On 11/3/21 12:25 AM, Jesse Taube wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/2/21 19:17, Fabio Estevam wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:57 PM Jesse Taube <mr.bossman075 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>    static struct esdhc_soc_data usdhc_imx8qxp_data = {
>>>           .flags = ESDHC_FLAG_USDHC | ESDHC_FLAG_STD_TUNING
>>> @@ -357,6 +363,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id imx_esdhc_dt_ids[] = {
>>>           { .compatible = "fsl,imx7ulp-usdhc", .data = &usdhc_imx7ulp_data, },
>>>           { .compatible = "fsl,imx8qxp-usdhc", .data = &usdhc_imx8qxp_data, },
>>>           { .compatible = "fsl,imx8mm-usdhc", .data = &usdhc_imx8mm_data, },
>>> +       { .compatible = "fsl,imxrt-usdhc", .data = &usdhc_imxrt_data, },
>>
>> I thought Rob suggested to use the SoC name, so this would be:
>>
> Uh i think that may have been for the UART.
>> { .compatible = "fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc", .data = &usdhc_imxrt1050_data, },
>>
>> The same applies to the other bindings in the series.
>>
>> This way it would be possible to differentiate between future
>> supported i.MX RT devices.
>>
> This makes sense will do in V3.
> 

If we add every SoC we will end up having a long list for every device 
driver. At the moment it would be 7 parts:
1) imxrt1020
2) imxrt1024
.
.
.
7) imxrt1170

Is it ok anyway?

Best regards
-- 
Giulio Benetti
Benetti Engineering sas