From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: boris.brezillon@bootlin.com (Boris Brezillon) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 07:07:34 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 06/29] mtd: Add support for reading MTD devices via the nvmem API In-Reply-To: <20180820232748.608c3667@tock> References: <20180810080526.27207-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20180810080526.27207-7-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20180817182720.6a6e5e8e@bbrezillon> <20180819133106.0420df5f@tock> <20180819184609.6dcdbb9a@bbrezillon> <5b8c30b8-41e1-d59e-542b-fef6c6469ff0@linaro.org> <20180820202038.5d3dc195@bbrezillon> <20180820232748.608c3667@tock> Message-ID: <20180821070734.6dd1734d@bbrezillon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 23:27:48 +0200 Alban wrote: > On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 20:20:38 +0200 > Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:43:34 +0100 > > Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > > > > > > > > Overall am still not able to clear visualize on how MTD bindings with > > > nvmem cells would look in both partition and un-partition usecases? > > > An example DT would be nice here!! > > > > Something along those lines: > > We must also have a compatible string on the nvmem-cells node to make > sure we don't clash with the old style MTD partitions, That's not possible, because we don't have a reg prop in the nvmem-cells node. > or some other > device specific binding. This one might happen. Was Rob okay with this compatible? If he was, I guess we can go for this binding. Srinivas, any objection? > > > > > mtdnode { > > nvmem-cells { > compatible = "nvmem-cells"; > > #address-cells = <1>; > > #size-cells = <1>; > > > > cell at 0 { > > reg = <0x0 0x14>; > > }; > > }; > > > > partitions { > > compatible = "fixed-partitions"; > > #address-cells = <1>; > > #size-cells = <1>; > > > > partition at 0 { > > reg = <0x0 0x20000>; > > > > nvmem-cells { > compatible = "nvmem-cells"; > > #address-cells = <1>; > > #size-cells = <1>; > > > > cell at 0 { > > reg = <0x0 0x10>; > > }; > > }; > > }; > > }; > > }; > > > Alban