From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <554CDD8C.7050000@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 10:00:12 -0600 From: Stephen Warren MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: add "nor-jedec" flash compatible binding References: <1431066098-19821-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1431066098-19821-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, Alexandre Courbot , Thierry Reding , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 05/08/2015 12:21 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > Starting with commits > 8ff16cf ("Documentation: devicetree: m25p80: add "nor-jedec" binding") > 1103b85 ("mtd: m25p80: bind to "nor-jedec" ID, for auto-detection") > we have "nor-jedec" binding indicating support for JEDEC identification. The documentation looks quite incomplete. "nor-jedec" sounds like it's intended to be something generic. As such, it should be documented in e.g. Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nor-jedec.txt, not buried in one particular flash device's binding. If it's not intended to be generic, why isn't the existing "winbond,w25q32dw" enough? Equally, "nor-jedec" doesn't sound like the right name. It doesn't differentiate between SPI and parallel NOR flash, which presumably need different compatible values, since the programming model is quite different, and the compatible value is supposed to define/imply the SW-visible programming model. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: add "nor-jedec" flash compatible binding Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 10:00:12 -0600 Message-ID: <554CDD8C.7050000@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1431066098-19821-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1431066098-19821-1-git-send-email-zajec5-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Cc: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Thierry Reding , Alexandre Courbot , linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mtd-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 05/08/2015 12:21 AM, Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki wrote: > Starting with commits > 8ff16cf ("Documentation: devicetree: m25p80: add "nor-jedec" binding"= ) > 1103b85 ("mtd: m25p80: bind to "nor-jedec" ID, for auto-detection") > we have "nor-jedec" binding indicating support for JEDEC identificati= on. The documentation looks quite incomplete. "nor-jedec" sounds like it's=20 intended to be something generic. As such, it should be documented in=20 e.g. Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nor-jedec.txt, not buried in= =20 one particular flash device's binding. If it's not intended to be=20 generic, why isn't the existing "winbond,w25q32dw" enough? Equally, "nor-jedec" doesn't sound like the right name. It doesn't=20 differentiate between SPI and parallel NOR flash, which presumably need= =20 different compatible values, since the programming model is quite=20 different, and the compatible value is supposed to define/imply the=20 SW-visible programming model. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren) Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 10:00:12 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: add "nor-jedec" flash compatible binding In-Reply-To: <1431066098-19821-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> References: <1431066098-19821-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <554CDD8C.7050000@wwwdotorg.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 05/08/2015 12:21 AM, Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote: > Starting with commits > 8ff16cf ("Documentation: devicetree: m25p80: add "nor-jedec" binding") > 1103b85 ("mtd: m25p80: bind to "nor-jedec" ID, for auto-detection") > we have "nor-jedec" binding indicating support for JEDEC identification. The documentation looks quite incomplete. "nor-jedec" sounds like it's intended to be something generic. As such, it should be documented in e.g. Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nor-jedec.txt, not buried in one particular flash device's binding. If it's not intended to be generic, why isn't the existing "winbond,w25q32dw" enough? Equally, "nor-jedec" doesn't sound like the right name. It doesn't differentiate between SPI and parallel NOR flash, which presumably need different compatible values, since the programming model is quite different, and the compatible value is supposed to define/imply the SW-visible programming model.