From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: b.brezillon.dev@gmail.com (Boris BREZILLON) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:33:51 +0100 Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 09/14] mtd: nand: add sunxi NFC dt bindings doc In-Reply-To: <20980858CB6D3A4BAE95CA194937D5E73EA6C01D@DBDE04.ent.ti.com> References: <1391006064-28890-1-git-send-email-b.brezillon.dev@gmail.com> <1391006064-28890-10-git-send-email-b.brezillon.dev@gmail.com> <20980858CB6D3A4BAE95CA194937D5E73EA6C01D@DBDE04.ent.ti.com> Message-ID: <52E9498F.8090709@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Le 29/01/2014 19:02, Gupta, Pekon a ?crit : > Dear Rob, and other DT maintainers, > >> From: Rob Herring > [...] >>> +- onfi,nand-timing-mode : mandatory if the chip does not support the ONFI >>> + standard. >> Add to generic nand binding. >> >>> +- allwinner,rb : shall contain the native Ready/Busy ids. >>> + or >>> +- rb-gpios : shall contain the gpios used as R/B pins. >> Isn't allwinner,rb implied by a lack of rb-gpios property. Or no R/B >> pin is an option? If so, don't you need some fixed time delay >> properties like max erase time? >> >> rb-gpios could be added to the generic nand binding as well. >> > I do think this should go into generic nand binding, as this is controller specific. > Some controllers have dedicated R/B pin (Ready/Busy) while others may use > GPIO instead. It's the way a hardware controller is designed. You meant "You do not think", right ? If so, I think even if the retrieval and control of the GPIO is done is each NAND controller, we could at least use a common property name for all drivers using a GPIO to detect the R/B state. > Request you to please consider Ack from MTD Maintainers 'at-least' for > generic NAND DT bindings. There is already a discussion going in > a separate thread for which is still not awaiting replies [1]. > > [1]http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2014-January/051625.html I missed this thread, but I can definitely use the nand-ecc-strength and nand-ecc-step-size instead of the one I defined (nand-ecc-level), as long as there is a proper way to define these informations in the DT. I'll let DT and MTD maintainers decide ;-). Best Regards, Boris > > with regards, pekon