[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180821115639.4894c1c9@bbrezillon>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:56:39 +0200
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
To: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
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 Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:50:07 +0100
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org> wrote:
> 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>;
> };
> };
> };
> };
It's because partitions were initially directly defined under the mtd
node, so, if you have an old DT you might have something like:
mtdnode {
reg = <0x0123000 0x40000>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
partition@0 {
reg = <0x0 0x20000>;
...
};
...
};
If we use such a DT with this patch applied, the NVMEM framework will
consider MTD partitions as nvmem cells, which is not what we want.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists