Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] dt-bindings: mmc: fsl-imx-esdhc: add NXP S32G3 support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 22/03/2024 10:45, Wadim Mueller wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:53:34PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 16:41, Wadim Mueller wrote:
>>> Add a compatible string for the SDHC binding of NXP S32G3 platforms. Here
>>> we use "nxp,s32g2-usdhc" as fallback since the s32g2-usdhc
>>> driver works also on S32G3 platforms.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wadim Mueller <wafgo01@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml | 4 ++++
>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml
>>> index 82eb7a24c857..b42b4368fa4e 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml
>>> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ properties:
>>>            - fsl,imx8mm-usdhc
>>>            - fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc
>>>            - nxp,s32g2-usdhc
>>> +          - nxp,s32g3-usdhc
>>>        - items:
>>>            - const: fsl,imx50-esdhc
>>>            - const: fsl,imx53-esdhc
>>> @@ -90,6 +91,9 @@ properties:
>>>            - enum:
>>>                - fsl,imxrt1170-usdhc
>>>            - const: fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc
>>> +      - items:
>>> +          - const: nxp,s32g3-usdhc
>>> +          - const: nxp,s32g2-usdhc
>>
>> No, that's just wrong. G3 is not and is compatible with G2? There is no
>> dualism here. Either it is or it is not. Not both.
>>
> 
> I am trying to understand your statement but I am not sure whether I get
> it right.
> 
> Let me try to explain what I understand is wrong with this patch. 
> 
> Having nxp,s32g2-usdhc and nxp,s32g2-usdhc in one enum
> 
>>>            - nxp,s32g2-usdhc
>>> +          - nxp,s32g3-usdhc
> 
> would mean that those are 
> __not__ compatible with each other, whereas the anouther item
> 
>>> +      - items:
>>> +          - const: nxp,s32g3-usdhc
>>> +          - const: nxp,s32g2-usdhc
>>
> 
> where both const entries are side by side means that those are compatible. Which is
> paradox. Is this undersanding correct?

Yes, you placed the same compatible in two separate places. It has two
separate meanings.

> 
> So if I want to have the follwing im my DTS for the mmc node
> 
> usdhc0: mmc@402f0000 {
> 			compatible = "nxp,s32g3-usdhc",
> 				     "nxp,s32g2-usdhc";
> 				     ...
> }
> 
> The schema update should contain just this part?
> 
> i@@ -90,6 +90,9 @@ properties:
>            - enum:
>                - fsl,imxrt1170-usdhc
>            - const: fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc
> +      - items:
> +          - const: nxp,s32g3-usdhc
> +          - const: nxp,s32g2-usdhc
>  
>    reg:
>      maxItems: 1
> 
> 
> Is this correct?

Yes.



Best regards,
Krzysztof