[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <558A79B3.1010205@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:34:43 +0100
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Sanchayan Maity <maitysanchayan@...il.com>
CC: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, arnd@...db.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stefan@...er.ch,
kernel@...gutronix.de, shawn.guo@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 2/2] nvmem: Add Vybrid OCOTP and OCROM support
On 24/06/15 09:35, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 07:14:57PM +0530, Sanchayan Maity wrote:
>> +static struct nvmem_config ocotp_config = {
>> + .name = "soc_id",
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct nvmem_config rom_config = {
>> + .name = "rom_rev",
>> +};
>
> Srinivas, shouldn't we use the DT to setup these names, just like
> clock-output-names does for example?
These are the provider names, which would not change per board, I think. :-)
On the other hand if we are going to use generic drivers like
"simple-mmio-nvmem" then having name DT bindings makes sense.
IMO, clock-output-names are analogous to nvmem consumers, which are
obviously getting there names from cell node name ATM.
>
> This is very likely to change from one board to another, and defining
> a new compatible and/or driver for each board seems a bit fishy.
>
Do you have any particular example in mind, where the provider names
would change per board?
--srini
> Maxime
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists