public inbox for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com>
To: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
	Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@mail.ru>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@gmail.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
	Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>, Pekon Gupta <pekon@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mtd: nand: gpio: Add DT property to automatically determine bus width
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 08:17:22 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131130111721.GA2330@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131130091556.GD29397@norris.computersforpeace.net>

Brian,

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 01:15:56AM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> 
> > Can anyone help me understand if there's *any* valid use case where we
> > want to specify a-priori the bus width, considering it's completely
> > discoverable at run-time?
> 
> I think the primary use case should be to reflect a limitation in the
> hardware (besides just the flash chip). It can mean that the controller
> itself only supports one bus width, or that the board is only wired up
> for x8, for instance.
> 

What do you mean by "reflect a limitation" of the hardware?

Maybe I'm not really following you, but it sounds as you're mixing up
the NAND device buswidth and the memory controller buswidth. At least
I consider them as two different parameters for two different pieces
of hardware.

Consider OMAP, just as an example. We currently have two DT properties:

1. nand-bus-width: not related to OMAP but kernel wide. It's supposed
   to specify the devices buswidth.

2. gpmc,device-width: It specifies how the controller should be
   configured (it doesn't really specify hardware, but configuration,
   sadly).

I now realise maybe this piece of DT binding is not a good example of DT.

Anyway, once again: Why would we need to set "nand-bus-width" to specify
the flash device width given we can discover that as soon as the NAND
is detected?

Notice, that this discussion is independent of the discussion about removing
the NAND_BUSWIDTH_AUTO. It's just about removing a DT property for a
parameter that's runtime configurable.
-- 
Ezequiel García, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com

  reply	other threads:[~2013-11-30 11:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-11-13 11:58 [PATCH v5 1/3] mtd: nand: gpio: Add DT property to automatically determine bus width Alexander Shiyan
2013-11-13 11:58 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] mtd: nand: gpio: Use devm_gpio_request_one() where possible Alexander Shiyan
2013-11-13 11:58 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] mtd: nand: gpio: Add support for multichip devices Alexander Shiyan
2013-11-27  1:21 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] mtd: nand: gpio: Add DT property to automatically determine bus width Brian Norris
2013-11-27  1:23   ` Brian Norris
2013-11-29 12:25     ` Ezequiel Garcia
2013-11-29 12:35       ` Alexander Shiyan
2013-11-29 12:44         ` Ezequiel Garcia
2013-11-30  9:15       ` Brian Norris
2013-11-30 11:17         ` Ezequiel Garcia [this message]
2013-11-30 18:35           ` Brian Norris
2013-11-27  4:21   ` Alexander Shiyan
2013-11-27  4:34     ` Brian Norris
2013-11-29  8:56   ` Alexander Shiyan
2013-11-30  9:17     ` Brian Norris
2013-12-05  2:18       ` Brian Norris
2013-12-05  7:45         ` Alexander Shiyan
2013-11-27 20:16 ` Gupta, Pekon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20131130111721.GA2330@localhost \
    --to=ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
    --cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=eric.y.miao@gmail.com \
    --cc=haojian.zhuang@gmail.com \
    --cc=ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \
    --cc=pekon@ti.com \
    --cc=rob.herring@calxeda.com \
    --cc=shc_work@mail.ru \
    --cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox