From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: computersforpeace@gmail.com (Brian Norris)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 15:46:46 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: add "nor-jedec" flash compatible binding
In-Reply-To: <20150508213414.GE32500@ld-irv-0074>
References: <1431066098-19821-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com>
 <554CDD8C.7050000@wwwdotorg.org>
 <20150508184317.GZ32500@ld-irv-0074>
 <CAMuHMdXeen3cU2bb8TXxxtdDjgMCU_FS1Yxdu1b-Tq2xE+x0ZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <554D24DA.8060601@wwwdotorg.org>
 <20150508213414.GE32500@ld-irv-0074>
Message-ID: <20150511224646.GJ32500@ld-irv-0074>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi DT maintainers,

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:34:14PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:04:26PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 05/08/2015 02:57 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > >On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:00:12AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > >>>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.
> > >>
> > >>It's definitely for SPI only. There was much discussion about this a
> > >>few months back. Somewhere along the way, it was mentioned that the
> > >>context (SPI slave is a child of SPI master) would make this clear. I'm
> > >>still not sure why we didn't end up with something more descriptive,
> > >>though, like "spi-nor,nor-jedec".
> > >
> > >What about "jedec,spi-nor"?
> > 
> > That seems unique enough to me, or the options below if they're
> > actually applicable.
> 
> That could be OK with me. If I can get the magic blessing from the DT
> folks, then I'll send patches to update everything.

Can I get an 'ack' for this change? We merged a binding for "nor-jedec"
in 4.1-rc1, with review (but no explicit 'ack') from Mark, and a few
DTS's are starting to use it. But we're now seeing objections, with a
request to change this to "jedec,spi-nor". I don't care too much, but I
can understand Stephen's point.

Anyway, I don't want to go through too many more patch cycles without an
explicit ack here on the "jedec,spi-nor" binding (i.e.,
s/nor-jedec/jedec,spi-nor/g). With an ack, then I can make sure the
binding and current users get changed before 4.1 is minted, and prevent
other ARM subarchitectures from pulling in the "wrong" binding for 4.2.

Brian