From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([62.4.15.54]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.87 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1cjmTF-0003Uj-Vq for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:38:07 +0000 Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:37:44 +0100 From: Boris Brezillon To: Alban Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Cyrille Pitchen , Richard Weinberger , Marek Vasut , Brian Norris , David Woodhouse , Mark Rutland , Rob Herring , Maxime Ripard , Srinivas Kandagatla , Moritz Fischer Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] doc: bindings: Add bindings documentation for mtd nvmem Message-ID: <20170303133744.152cf3ca@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: <20170303131705.119021f4@tock> References: <1488484223-844-1-git-send-email-albeu@free.fr> <1488484223-844-2-git-send-email-albeu@free.fr> <20170302212220.4c3c7bef@bbrezillon> <20170303131705.119021f4@tock> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:17:05 +0100 Alban wrote: > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 21:22:20 +0100 > Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 20:50:21 +0100 > > Alban wrote: > > > > > Add the binding to expose MTD partitions as nvmem providers. > > > > Looks good. Maybe you should take the case you describe in your > > cover-letter into account and add an extra layer: add an nvmem sub-node > > containing the nvmem cells, so that you can expose nvmem cells directly > > under master MTD devices (and not only partitions). > > I think that would be the better solution. This can be done > independently, once we agree on a binding we just have to fix > of_nvmem_cell_get(). My suggestion would be to have the new binding > looking like this: > > nvmem-device@10 { > ... > nvmem-provider; > nvmem-cells { > compatible = "nvmem-cells"; > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <1>; > > nvmem-cell@100 { > label = "mac-address"; > reg = <0x100 0x200>; > } > > ... > } > } > > I would also suggest making the "nvmem-provider" property mandatory > to indicate that the device provides this capability. Up to now all > nvmem providers only support this API but I think there might be more > multi function devices in the future. If you enforce the name of the child node (here nvmem-cells), you don't need this extra nvmem-provider property. Am I missing something?