Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: mmc: fsl-imx-esdhc: add S32N79 support
From: Ciprian Marian Costea
Date: Wed Feb 25 2026 - 04:44:48 EST
On 2/24/2026 7:59 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 05:58:05PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 12:15:31PM +0100, Ciprian Costea wrote:
From: Ciprian Marian Costea <ciprianmarian.costea@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Add compatible string "nxp,s32n79-usdhc" for the uSDHC controller found in
NXP S32N79 series automotive SoCs.
The controller is compatible with the existing i.MX uSDHC controllers.
Co-developed-by: Larisa Grigore <larisa.grigore@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Larisa Grigore <larisa.grigore@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Marian Costea <ciprianmarian.costea@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml
index b98a84f93277..014b049baeb6 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,s32n79-usdhc
Ditto here, no driver change?
Actually, this doesn't make sense per the commit message "the
controller is compatible with the existing...". I'd expect to see a
fallback compatible permitted in that case.
I can see how my statement mean more that what I've intended.
I've mostly wanted to emphasize that the S32N79 uSDHC controller follows
the same register layout as other i.MX SoCs. But regarding quirks it differs from other i.MX uSDHC.
Hence, I will drop this comment from the commit message in V2.
Best Regards,
Ciprian
- items:
- const: fsl,imx50-esdhc
- const: fsl,imx53-esdhc
--
2.43.0