From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <554D24AC.9080404@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 15:03:40 -0600 From: Stephen Warren MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Norris Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: add "nor-jedec" flash compatible binding References: <1431066098-19821-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> <554CDD8C.7050000@wwwdotorg.org> <20150508184317.GZ32500@ld-irv-0074> <554D1624.5030608@wwwdotorg.org> <20150508201527.GC32500@ld-irv-0074> In-Reply-To: <20150508201527.GC32500@ld-irv-0074> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marek Vasut , Alexandre Courbot , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= , linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, Thierry Reding , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Ezequiel Garcia , linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 05/08/2015 02:15 PM, Brian Norris wrote: > On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:01:40PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 05/08/2015 12:43 PM, Brian Norris wrote: >>> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:00:12AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>> Equally, "nor-jedec" doesn't sound like the right name. It doesn't >>>> differentiate between SPI and parallel NOR flash, which presumably >>>> need different compatible values, since the programming model is >>>> quite different, and the compatible value is supposed to >>>> define/imply the SW-visible programming model. >>> >>> It's definitely for SPI only. There was much discussion about this a >>> few months back. Somewhere along the way, it was mentioned that the >>> context (SPI slave is a child of SPI master) would make this clear. I'm >>> still not sure why we didn't end up with something more descriptive, >>> though, like "spi-nor,nor-jedec". >>> >>> I'm open to change, as this binding is new in 4.1-rc1. >> >> I don't believe compatible values should be interpreted according to >> context; compatible value matching isn't implemented that way AFAIK, >> and I'm not aware of any precedent for it to work that way. > > For SPI slaves, they are always nested within their SPI master/bus node. > The master driver chooses how to probe its children. So there is some > context-sensitivity. That means it might be possible to implement context-sensitivity. However, it does not mean context-sensitivity is or should be implemented. >> Did the discussion involve the core DT maintainers? If so, whatever >> they decided can stick. Otherwise, the discussion should be rubn by >> them. > > Yes. I never got an "ack", but Mark Rutland commented a few times and > didn't seem to object to the name. e.g.: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2015-March/058275.html Nobody pointed out in that thread the "jedec-nor" isn't remotely SPI-specific.