From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean MacLennan Subject: Re: [PATCH] ndfc driver Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 23:01:35 -0500 Message-ID: <20081209230135.35e1b9d1@lappy.seanm.ca> References: <20081203222832.3fc77d28@lappy.seanm.ca> <20081204090107.20269571@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20081208193446.37e27e26@lappy.seanm.ca> <20081209021115.GA13948@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20081208214512.461276d2@lappy.seanm.ca> <20081208223227.19a702a9@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20081208235437.08323e3a@lappy.seanm.ca> <493E24D8.6040406@firmworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <493E24D8.6040406@firmworks.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@ozlabs.org To: Mitch Bradley Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:57:12 -1000 "Mitch Bradley" wrote: > One address/size cell isn't enough for the next generation of NAND > FLASH chips. > I am no dts expert, but I thought I could put: nand { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>; in my dts and you could put: nand { #address-cells = <2>; #size-cells = <2>; and, assuming we specified the reg entry right, everything would just work. Is that assumption wrong? And if the assumption is true, should I make a note in the doc that you can make the address and size bigger? Cheers, Sean