Re: OF compatible MTD platform RAM driver ?

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1384 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:39:08AM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 March 2008 01:45, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 12:00:22PM -0500, Rune Torgersen wrote:
> > > linuxppc-dev-bounces+runet=innovsys.com@ozlabs.org wrote:
[snip]
> > > We ran ito the same issue.
> > > We did option 3, as it was efinetly the easiest,
> >
> > I think this is the best option in principle.
> 
> I'll implement that and post a patch after completing the ppc-to-powerpc 
> migration.
> 
> > > here is the sram entry in our dts:
> >
> > Except that your implementation of it is not good.
> >
> > You're relying on the old obsolete flash binding with the "probe-type"
> > field.  The solution should be adapted to the new approach which uses
> > values in the "compatible" field to indicate various sorts of flash
> > device.
> 
> What "compatible" values should I use for ROM and RAM mappings ?

That I'm not so sure of.  We'll need to find some consensus.

There may be existing IEEE1275 bindings for roms, which we should
investigate.  Arguably RAM should be represented by a memory node, but
that's going to get messy for this sort of application.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]