From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [63.81.120.155] (helo=imap.sh.mvista.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1JeXiv-0003Zx-3Q for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:39:33 +0000 Message-ID: <47EA6E88.5050109@ru.mvista.com> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:40:56 +0300 From: Sergei Shtylyov MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: OF compatible MTD platform RAM driver ? References: <200803101606.39184.laurentp@cse-semaphore.com> <200803251823.32039.laurentp@cse-semaphore.com> <200803251914.24021.laurentp@cse-semaphore.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Laurent Pinchart , ben@simtec.co.uk, David Gibson , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> - Using another device node with a compatible value set to >> "linear-ram" (or >> something similar). This would support both volatile and non-volatile >> devices, and a property could be added to specify if the device is >> volatile >> or not. > "memory-mapped-memory" perhaps :-) > Or, just "memory". Although that one might play havoc with some I'd suggest "ram" and "rom" then. Luckily the device trees don't contain binding for the real RAM chips yet. :-) > not-quite-correct main memory probing code. You mean the there's parsers that search the "compatible" prop for "memory" as well as "device_type" prop? > Segher WBR, Sergei