Re: [PATCH] ndfc driver

[Mitch Bradley <wmb@firmworks.com>]

>
> n Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:57:12 -1000
> "Mitch Bradley" <wmb@firmworks.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> > One address/size cell isn't enough for the next generation of NAND
>> > FLASH chips.
>> > 
>>     
>
> I am no dts expert, but I thought I could put:
>
> 	nand {
> 		#address-cells = <1>;
> 		#size-cells = <1>;
>
> in my dts and you could put:
>
> 	nand {
> 		#address-cells = <2>;
> 		#size-cells = <2>;
>
> and, assuming we specified the reg entry right, everything would just
> work. Is that assumption wrong?
>
> And if the assumption is true, should I make a note in the doc that you
> can make the address and size bigger?
>
> Cheers,
>    Sean
>
>   


In principle that is correct, but the device tree partition parser in 
the Linux kernel assumes one address cell and one size cell, or at least 
it did the last time I looked.

I wrote a patch to fix that and circulated it on the linuxppc list, but 
since lost interest. OLPC (my main focus) is probably going to switch to 
managed NAND (SSD, LBA-NAND, eMMC, or some such thing with a built-in 
Flash Translation Layer) at some point.  Raw NAND is starting to go by 
the wayside.