From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] nvmem: Update the OF binding to use a subnode for
 the cells list
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 18:03:16 +0100
Message-ID: <0fb0e8e9-e7b8-10c3-fcdd-399c73a33878@linaro.org>
References: <1521933899-362-1-git-send-email-albeu@free.fr>
 <1521933899-362-2-git-send-email-albeu@free.fr>
 <344e0087-7410-aebb-8a66-c6976064df10@linaro.org>
 <20180417165420.423a691b@avionic-0020>
 <8c4b48ad-e99e-030a-a4ee-b6df0fa59c79@linaro.org>
 <20180417180040.04f53495@avionic-0020> <20180418134119.2e587621@avionic-0020>
 <9f7d2987-b33e-79b5-ae58-2985fd7334e4@linaro.org>
 <20180418143243.3c23493c@avionic-0020>
 <e34619a4-e9b6-9945-a1cc-a3680aac6819@linaro.org>
 <20180418153440.187ed16e@avionic-0020>
 <d30656d6-f17e-6ed0-251f-2b59d02cd202@linaro.org>
 <20180607184155.6da38a01@tock>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180607184155.6da38a01@tock>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Alban <albeu@free.fr>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@wedev4u.fr>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org



On 07/06/18 17:41, Alban wrote:
> AFAIU the only thing that we disagree on now is if the nodes
> representing the cells should be direct children of the provider
> or in a dedicated subnode. For the MTD case both solution would solve
> the binding clash. I would really appreciate if the DT people could
Am reluctant in changing the nvmem generic bindings for a special case.

Can you try this with your original subnode proposal:
just pass the subnode node pointer in np of nvmem_config:

------------------------->cut<------------------------------------
diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/core.c b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
index b05aa8e81303..c9621632bbfb 100644
--- a/drivers/nvmem/core.c
+++ b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
@@ -472,7 +472,11 @@ struct nvmem_device *nvmem_register(const struct 
nvmem_config *config)
         nvmem->priv = config->priv;
         nvmem->reg_read = config->reg_read;
         nvmem->reg_write = config->reg_write;
-       nvmem->dev.of_node = config->dev->of_node;
+
+       if (config->np)
+               nvmem->dev.of_node = config->np;
+       else
+               nvmem->dev.of_node = config->dev->of_node;

         if (config->id == -1 && config->name) {
                 dev_set_name(&nvmem->dev, "%s", config->name);
diff --git a/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h b/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h
index f89598bc4e1c..743345ffe2c8 100644
--- a/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h
+++ b/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h
@@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ typedef int (*nvmem_reg_write_t)(void *priv, unsigned 
int offset,
   */
  struct nvmem_config {
         struct device           *dev;
+       struct device_node      *np;
         const char              *name;
         int                     id;
         struct module           *owner;

------------------------->cut<------------------------------------

thanks,
srini

> chip in so that we can settle this and get the MTD support merged.