[PATCH v3 25/28] ARM: mvebu: Add support for NAND controller in Armada 370/XP

[ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com (Ezequiel Garcia)]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:15:31AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:51:46AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 08:29:05AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:55:32AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > > > The Armada 370 and Armada XP SoC have a NAND controller (aka NFCv2).
> > > > This commit adds support for it in Armada 370 and Armada XP SoC
> > > > common devicetree.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-370-xp.dtsi | 9 +++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-370-xp.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-370-xp.dtsi
> > > > index 01e69fc..b4e6898 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-370-xp.dtsi
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-370-xp.dtsi
> > > > @@ -258,6 +258,15 @@
> > > >  				status = "disabled";
> > > >  			};
> > > >  
> > > > +			nand at d0000 {
> > > > +				compatible = "marvell,armada370-nand";
> > > 
> > > Could you please provide a separate patch updating the devicetree
> > > binding documentation?  You can also Cc the entire series to the
> > > devicetree ml as long as the documentation patch is easy to find in the
> > > series.  eg 'dt: binding: ...'
> > > 
> > 
> > Hm.. actually the controller already supports the new compatible string
> > so the binding documentation should be added now.
> 
> $ git grep -n 'marvell,armada370-nand' -- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/
> $

Well the controller supports it, but I never updated the binding:

$ git grep -n 'marvell,armada370-nand' -- drivers/mtd/nand/pxa3xx-nand.c

So that's why I think a separate patch to be taken by Brian now is more
appropriate.

> > And I'd rather do that in a separate patch, to avoid cluttering the poor
> > devicetree people with an unrelated 28-piece patch :-)
> 
> No (really), according to Grant and Mark during the closing session, I
> asked this specific question.  They _do_ want the entire series so they
> can refer to the corresponding code changes if necessary.  As I stated
> above, we can make their job easier by making the binding a separate
> patch that is clearly marked as such.
> 

Ah, good to know.

> > BTW: who should take such a patch? I'm still a little lost regarding
> > who takes the binding or dts patches for a given subsystem.
> 
> The appropriate sub-system maintainer still takes the patches, we simply
> wait a bit for the DT binding maintainers to chime in.  If they don't
> after a few weeks, we can take it without their Ack.
> 
> If the maintainer is unsure, or needs help reviewing the binding, they
> can always ping the DT folks for assistance.
> 

Ok, great.
-- 
Ezequiel Garc?a, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com