From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH (v4) 2/2] mtd: brcmnand: Add support for the BCM63268 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:41:45 -0800 Message-ID: <5654AF69.7040901@gmail.com> References: <56506D55.3000907@simon.arlott.org.uk> <20151122215945.GA5930@rob-hp-laptop> <56523E85.905@simon.arlott.org.uk> <56523EFF.9050502@simon.arlott.org.uk> <56535977.9050201@gmail.com> <56541BD3.4070202@simon.arlott.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56541BD3.4070202@simon.arlott.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Simon Arlott , Rob Herring Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Brian Norris , Linux Kernel Mailing List , David Woodhouse , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Jonas Gorski List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 24/11/15 00:12, Simon Arlott wrote: > On 23/11/15 18:22, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> On 22/11/15 14:17, Simon Arlott wrote: >>> The BCM63268 has a NAND interrupt register with combined status and enable >>> registers. It also has a clock for the NAND controller that needs to be >>> enabled. >>> >>> Set up the device by enabling the clock, disabling and acking all >>> interrupts, then handle the CTRL_READY interrupt. >>> >>> Add a "device_remove" function to struct brcmnand_soc so that the clock >>> can be disabled when the device is removed. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Arlott >>> --- >>> On 22/11/15 21:59, Rob Herring wrote: >>>>>>> + * "brcm,nand-bcm63268" >>>>>>> + - compatible: should contain "brcm,nand-bcm", "brcm,nand-bcm63268" >>>>> >>>>> vendor,-device is preferred. >>> >>> The existing two bindings use brcm,nand-, but I've changed this one. >> >> Could we stick with the existing binding naming convention of using: >> >> brcm,nand- just so automated tools or other things can match this >> one too, and +1 for consistency? > > I could submit another patch renaming the existing bindings to > brcm,-nand, and add that to the drivers? Then they'd be consistent. No, let's not create unnecessary churn because of a minor mistake. So, yes we *should* have used brcm,-nand in the first place, but now that there are DTSes out there using "brcm,nand-" there is not really any point in doing this, so please update your patches so they match the existing convention. > >> Other than, that, same comment as Jonas, why do we we need the >> device_remove callback to be called from the main driver down to this one? > > I'll add a "struct brcmnand_soc *brcmnand_get_socdata(struct device *)" > instead so that I can access the soc data before calling brcmnand_remove. > -- Florian