From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org (Srinivas Kandagatla) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:50:07 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 06/29] mtd: Add support for reading MTD devices via the nvmem API In-Reply-To: <20180820202038.5d3dc195@bbrezillon> 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> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 20/08/18 19:20, 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: > This looks good to me. > mtdnode { > 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 { > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <1>; > > cell at 0 { > reg = <0x0 0x10>; > }; > }; > }; > }; > }; > Just curious...Is there a reason why we can't do it like this?: Is this because of issue of #address-cells and #size-cells Or mtd bindings always prefer subnodes? mtdnode { reg = <0x0123000 0x40000>; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>; cell at 0 { compatible = "nvmem-cell"; reg = <0x0 0x14>; }; partitions { compatible = "fixed-partitions"; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>; partition at 0 { reg = <0x0 0x20000>; cell at 0 { compatible = "nvmem-cell"; reg = <0x0 0x10>; }; }; }; }; Am okay either way! thanks, srini