From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pd0-x236.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c02::236]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Xv6eq-0003mK-Vp for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2014 15:43:33 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f182.google.com with SMTP id r10so9317519pdi.13 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2014 07:43:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:42:58 +0800 From: Huang Shijie To: Brian Norris Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: gpmi: Remove "We support only one NAND chip" from bindings doc Message-ID: <20141130154255.GB14834@localhost.localdomain> References: <1417097929-17832-1-git-send-email-sr@denx.de> <20141128014832.GA3113@localhost.localdomain> <54781DD5.5030801@denx.de> <20141129024047.GA5056@localhost.localdomain> <20141130065326.GB3608@norris-Latitude-E6410> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141130065326.GB3608@norris-Latitude-E6410> Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Roese , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:53:26PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote: > On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:40:50AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 08:01:41AM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote: > > > On 28.11.2014 02:48, Huang Shijie wrote: > > > >On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 03:18:49PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote: > > > >>This sentence "We support only one NAND chip now" is not true any more. > > > >>Multiple chips are supported. So lets remove this sentence to not > > > > > > > >The gpmi can only supports one chip. Of course, there are maybe two dies > > > >in this single chip. > > > > > > Now I'm a bit confused. The i.MX6 supports 4 chips select signals. And isn't > > > "two dies in this single chip" not practically the same as connecting 2 (or > > > more) chips (same device) to multiple chip selects of the SoC? Where is the > > > difference here? > > The "one chip" here is means the "one package" (TSOP or BGA ....). > > Then why is this even in the DT binding doc? Isn't that a board-level > constraint (and not a chip property) which should be obvious to the > user? If so, then should we just drop the language? Or at a minimum, > make it more specific so it doesn't confuse readers. yes. It is okay to send a patch to make it more clear. > > > (In logic, "two dies in this single chip" is same as connecting 2 chips > > to the gpmi.) > > ...which means that logically, you can connect more than one chip to the > GPMI, right? The gpmi can only connect with one physical chip now, but there maybe two DIEs in this chip. thanks Huang Shijie