From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org (Srinivas Kandagatla) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:34:43 +0100 Subject: [RFC PATCH v6 2/2] nvmem: Add Vybrid OCOTP and OCROM support In-Reply-To: <20150624083529.GY2266@lukather> References: <20150624083529.GY2266@lukather> Message-ID: <558A79B3.1010205@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 24/06/15 09:35, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 07:14:57PM +0530, Sanchayan Maity wrote: >> +static struct nvmem_config ocotp_config = { >> + .name = "soc_id", >> +}; >> + >> +static struct nvmem_config rom_config = { >> + .name = "rom_rev", >> +}; > > Srinivas, shouldn't we use the DT to setup these names, just like > clock-output-names does for example? These are the provider names, which would not change per board, I think. :-) On the other hand if we are going to use generic drivers like "simple-mmio-nvmem" then having name DT bindings makes sense. IMO, clock-output-names are analogous to nvmem consumers, which are obviously getting there names from cell node name ATM. > > This is very likely to change from one board to another, and defining > a new compatible and/or driver for each board seems a bit fishy. > Do you have any particular example in mind, where the provider names would change per board? --srini > Maxime >