[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <344e0087-7410-aebb-8a66-c6976064df10@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:54:07 +0100
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Alban Bedel <albeu@...e.fr>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] nvmem: Update the OF binding to use a subnode for
the cells list
On 24/03/18 23:24, Alban Bedel wrote:
> Having the cells as subnodes of the provider device without any
> compatible property might clash with other bindings. To avoid this
> problem update the binding to have all the cells in a 'nvmem-cells'
> subnode with a 'nvmem-cells' compatible string. This new binding
> guarantee that we can turn any kind of device in a nvmem provider.
>
> While discouraged for new uses the old scheme is still supported for
> backward compatibility.
Am not sure if this a really good idea to change nvmem bindings based on
provider requirements. This can be a beginning of other problems!!
Did you know that we can pass nvmem cells info via nvmem config ?
Why can't mtd-nvmem provider populate the nvmem_config->cells from its
dt "nvmem-cells" subnode before it registers the provider?
Doing this way will make the binding very much specific to the provider
rather than changing nvmem core bindings.
thanks,
srini
Powered by blists - more mailing lists