lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:50:07 +0100 From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org> To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com> Cc: Alban <albeu@...e.fr>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Naren <naren.kernel@...il.com>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>, Sven Van Asbroeck <svendev@...x.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/29] mtd: Add support for reading MTD devices via the nvmem API On 20/08/18 19:20, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:43:34 +0100 > Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org> wrote: > >> >> Overall am still not able to clear visualize on how MTD bindings with >> nvmem cells would look in both partition and un-partition usecases? >> An example DT would be nice here!! > > Something along those lines: > This looks good to me. > mtdnode { > nvmem-cells { > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <1>; > > cell@0 { > reg = <0x0 0x14>; > }; > }; > > partitions { > compatible = "fixed-partitions"; > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <1>; > > partition@0 { > reg = <0x0 0x20000>; > > nvmem-cells { > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <1>; > > cell@0 { > reg = <0x0 0x10>; > }; > }; > }; > }; > }; > Just curious...Is there a reason why we can't do it like this?: Is this because of issue of #address-cells and #size-cells Or mtd bindings always prefer subnodes? mtdnode { reg = <0x0123000 0x40000>; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>; cell@0 { compatible = "nvmem-cell"; reg = <0x0 0x14>; }; partitions { compatible = "fixed-partitions"; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>; partition@0 { reg = <0x0 0x20000>; cell@0 { compatible = "nvmem-cell"; reg = <0x0 0x10>; }; }; }; }; Am okay either way! thanks, srini
Powered by blists - more mailing lists