From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751613AbdHQFn6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 17 Aug 2017 01:43:58 -0400
Received: from lelnx193.ext.ti.com ([198.47.27.77]:10631 "EHLO
        lelnx193.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751169AbdHQFn4 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 17 Aug 2017 01:43:56 -0400
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/7] dt-bindings: ti-omap-hsmmc: Document new
 compatible for sdhci omap
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
References: <20170807160142.12134-1-kishon@ti.com>
 <20170807160142.12134-6-kishon@ti.com> <20170809221222.GK3934@atomide.com>
CC: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>, <nsekhar@ti.com>,
        <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>
Message-ID: <2cdf9bbe-b98b-8811-7587-268b7ef4ac66@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:13:47 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170809221222.GK3934@atomide.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Tony,

On Thursday 10 August 2017 03:42 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> [170807 09:03]:
>> Document the new compatible string "ti,dra7-sdhci" to be used for
>> MMC controllers in DRA7 and DRA72 SoCs.
> 
> I wonder if this should really be documented for sdhci
> instead of ti-omap-hsmmc.txt?

hmm.. yeah, having a separate binding document for sdhci would make the binding
really clean and we also don't have to carry legacy binding code. But we'll be
never able to remove omap-hsmmc driver then and end up maintaining 2 drivers
for the same controller.
> 
> I agree it's better to use sdhci compatible and keep the
> hsmmc compatible around as the sdhci is still missing features
> for runtime PM and context save and restore etc.

yeah, once we have all the features in omap_hsmmc added in sdhci-omap, we can
add the omap-hsmmc compatible to sdhci-omap and remove omap-hsmmc driver.

Thanks
Kishon