From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ezequiel Garcia Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] ARM: mvebu: Add support for NAND controller in Armada 38x SoC Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:29:36 -0300 Message-ID: <20140312212936.GA2384@arch.cereza> References: <1394637404-7651-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <1394637404-7651-5-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <5320CEE7.6020506@cogentembedded.com> <20140312203007.GA7396@arch.cereza> <5320D3FD.8010704@cogentembedded.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5320D3FD.8010704-M4DtvfQ/ZS1MRgGoP+s0PdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sergei Shtylyov Cc: Mike Turquette , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-mtd-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Jason Cooper , Thomas Petazzoni , Lior Amsalem , Tawfik Bayouk , Andrew Lunn , Seif Mazareeb , Gregory Clement , Sebastian Hesselbarth List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mar 13, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > On 03/12/2014 11:30 PM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: >=20 > >>>The Armada 38x SoC family has a NAND controller, compatible > >>>with the controller in Armada 370/375/XP SoCs. Add support for > >>>it in the devicetree file. >=20 > >>>Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia > >>>--- > >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi | 10 ++++++++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) >=20 > >>>diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts= /armada-38x.dtsi > >>>index 76cc27e..18d8f80 100644 > >>>--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi > >>>+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi > >>>@@ -345,6 +345,16 @@ > >>> clocks =3D <&mainpll>; > >>> clock-output-names =3D "nand"; > >>> }; > >>>+ > >>>+ nand@d0000 { >=20 > >> ePAPR standard [1] tells us: >=20 > >>The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting the funct= ion of > >>the device and not its precise programming model. If appropriate, t= he name > >>should be one of the following choices: >=20 > >>[...] > >>=E2=80=A2 flash >=20 > >I think 'nand' is generic enough, isn't it? >=20 > It is but not more generic than "flash". :-) >=20 Right. > >FWIW, quite a few other SoCs have chosen 'nand' for the node name, i= ncluding > >the other Armada variants. Was this a wrong choice? >=20 > I guess. There's a lot of wrong choices now all over the > arch/arm/boot/dts/ because people are probably not aware of the neces= sary > documentation such as http://devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage (pointi= ng to > ePAPR and having a passage on the generic device names too). >=20 OK, I guess it's fine. Let's try to do things from now on, at least. I'= ll fix this and send a new series. --=20 Ezequiel Garc=C3=ADa, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" i= n the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html