From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roger Quadros Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 18/27] mtd: nand: omap2: Implement NAND ready using gpiolib Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:43:40 +0200 Message-ID: <562F393C.1030701@ti.com> References: <1442588029-13769-1-git-send-email-rogerq@ti.com> <1442588029-13769-19-git-send-email-rogerq@ti.com> <20151026204900.GI13239@google.com> <562F2FB6.7050806@ti.com> <20151027091235.03dba8c5@bbrezillon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151027091235.03dba8c5@bbrezillon> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Boris Brezillon Cc: Brian Norris , tony-4v6yS6AI5VpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, dwmw2-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org, ezequiel-30ULvvUtt6G51wMPkGsGjgyUoB5FGQPZ@public.gmane.org, javier-0uQlZySMnqxg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, fcooper-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org, nsekhar-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org, linux-mtd-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-omap-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Alex Smith , Harvey Hunt List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Boris, On 27/10/15 10:12, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Hi Roger, > > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:03:02 +0200 > Roger Quadros wrote: > >> On 26/10/15 22:49, Brian Norris wrote: >>> >>> Others have been looking at using GPIOs for the ready/busy pin too. At a >>> minimum, we need an updated DT binding doc for this, since I see you're >>> adding this via device tree in a later patch (I don't see any DT binding >>> patch for this; but I could just be overlooking it). It'd also be great >>> if this support was moved to nand_dt_init() so other platforms can >>> benefit, but I won't require that. >>> >>> Also, previous [0] proposers had suggested 'rb-gpios', not 'ready-gpio' >>> (the hardware docs typically call it 'rb' for ready/busy, FWIW). I don't >>> really care, but the name should be going into a doc, so we can choose >>> the same one everywhere. >>> >>> EDIT: looks like the discussion was partly here [1] and it seems we're >>> landing on "rb-gpios" in the latest version [2]. Can we stick with that? >> >> Why should it be "rb-gpios" and not "rb-gpio"? >> I don't think there are multiple gpios for r/b# function. > > Because it's supposed to be a generic binding, and some NAND chips > embed several dies, thus exposing several CS and RB pins, hence the > rb-gpios name. > Also, as described here [1], the convention is to name your property > -gpios even if you only need one gpio. Makes sense now. Thanks for the explanation. I'll update this patch to use rb-gpios and update the binding doc as well. -- cheers, -roger -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html