From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Arnd Bergmann To: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add local bus device nodes to MPC837xMDS device trees. Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:43:49 +0100 References: <1204800155-11613-1-git-send-email-leoli@freescale.com> <9f7d0248e911f6fa1a2d4292c96ef72e@kernel.crashing.org> <20080310235429.GC11559@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20080310235429.GC11559@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200803110143.50561.arnd@arndb.de> Cc: Li Yang , paulus@samba.org, David Gibson List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tuesday 11 March 2008, David Gibson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 04:39:30AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > This isn't a problem with this device tree, but it's probably time we > > > started establishing some conventional generic names for nand flash > > > and board-control devices. > > > > > > So, to start the ball rolling, I've seen several names for nand flash > > > nodes, I'd suggest we standardise on "nand-flash". > >=20 > > What's wrong with the already well-established generic name "flash"? >=20 > I was concerned that using "flash" for both NOR flash (which it > already is) and NAND flash might be unwise. =A0I am quite open to being > convinced otherwise, though. One argument for just using "flash" is that there are much finer differences than just "NAND" and "NOR", with at least "dataflash", "OneNAND", "SD/MMC" being further types of flash that don't fit the categories exactly, though each one for different reasons. =46or SD/MMC, there are good reasons to use something completely different, for the others, calling them all "flash" sounds better than fitting them into "nand" and "nor". Arnd <><