From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:13:55 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1484291609-20195-1-git-send-email-guochun.mao@mediatek.com> <1484291609-20195-3-git-send-email-guochun.mao@mediatek.com> <20170113151747.6bc85245@bbrezillon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matthias Brugger , Boris Brezillon , Guochun Mao Cc: David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , Richard Weinberger , Cyrille Pitchen , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Russell King , linux-mtd-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-mediatek-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 01/13/2017 04:12 PM, Matthias Brugger wrote: > > > On 13/01/17 15:17, Boris Brezillon wrote: >> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:13:29 +0800 >> Guochun Mao wrote: >> >>> Add Mediatek nor flash node. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Guochun Mao >>> --- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi | 12 ++++++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts >>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts >>> index 082ca88..85e5ae8 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts >>> @@ -24,6 +24,31 @@ >>> }; >>> }; >>> >>> +&nor_flash { >>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>> + pinctrl-0 = <&nor_pins_default>; >>> + status = "okay"; >>> + flash@0 { >>> + compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"; >>> + reg = <0>; >>> + }; >>> +}; >>> + >>> +&pio { >>> + nor_pins_default: nor { >>> + pins1 { >>> + pinmux = , >>> + , >>> + , >>> + , >>> + , >>> + ; >>> + drive-strength = ; >>> + bias-pull-up; >>> + }; >>> + }; >>> +}; >>> + >>> &uart0 { >>> status = "okay"; >>> }; >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi >>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi >>> index bdf8954..1eefce4 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi >>> @@ -227,6 +227,18 @@ >>> status = "disabled"; >>> }; >>> >>> + nor_flash: spi@11014000 { >>> + compatible = "mediatek,mt2701-nor", >>> + "mediatek,mt8173-nor"; >> >> Why define both here? Is "mediatek,mt8173-nor" really providing a >> subset of the features supported by "mediatek,mt2701-nor"? >> > > I think even if the ip block is the same, we should provide both > bindings, just in case in the future we find out that mt2701 has some > hidden bug, feature or bug-feature. This way even if we update the > driver, we stay compatible with older device tree blobs in the wild. > > We can drop the mt2701-nor in the bindings definition if you want. This exactly. We should have a DT compat in the form: compatible = "vendor,-block", "vendor,-block"; Then if we find a problem in the future, we can match on the "vendor,-block" and still support the old DTs. The question is, does the "vendor,-block" go into the binding document as well or do we only have "vendor,-block" there ? -- Best regards, Marek Vasut -- 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