[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YEUHsoC4V+H6PCHL@Ansuel-xps.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2021 18:04:50 +0100
From: Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: mtd: Document use of
nvmem-partitions compatible
On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 10:48:32AM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 16.02.2021 22:26, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > Document nvmem-partitions compatible used to treat mtd partitions as a
> > nvmem provider.
>
> I'm just wondering if "nvmem-partitions" is accurate enough. Partitions
> bit sounds a bit ambiguous in the mtd context.
>
> What do you think about "mtd-nvmem-cells" or just "nvmem-cells"?
I read somewhere that mtd is not so standard so "nvmem-cells" should be the
right compatible.
To sum up, with v2 I should change the compatible name and just push the
2 and 3 patch. (waiting your fix to be accepted) Correct?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists