Re: [PATCH 4/6] ARM: mvebu: Add support for NAND controller in Armada 38x SoC

[Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>]

On 03/12/2014 11:30 PM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:

>>> The Armada 38x SoC family has a NAND controller, compatible
>>> with the controller in Armada 370/375/XP SoCs. Add support for
>>> it in the devicetree file.

>>> Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi | 10 ++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi
>>> index 76cc27e..18d8f80 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi
>>> @@ -345,6 +345,16 @@
>>>   				clocks = <&mainpll>;
>>>   				clock-output-names = "nand";
>>>   			};
>>> +
>>> +			nand@d0000 {

>>     ePAPR standard [1] tells us:

>> The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting the function of
>> the device and not its precise programming model. If appropriate, the name
>> should be one of the following choices:

>> [...]
>> • flash

> I think 'nand' is generic enough, isn't it?

    It is but not more generic than "flash". :-)

> In any case, it seems sane to distinguish a NAND flash from a NOR flash,
> from a SPI flash.

    I don't know enough about the SPI flashes but this is only a node name, no 
more, so I think we can afford to be really generic...

> FWIW, quite a few other SoCs have chosen 'nand' for the node name, including
> the other Armada variants. Was this a wrong choice?

    I guess. There's a lot of wrong choices now all over the 
arch/arm/boot/dts/ because people are probably not aware of the necessary 
documentation such as http://devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage (pointing to 
ePAPR and having a passage on the generic device names too).

WBR, Sergei