From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:45:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: Aaron Sierra <asierra@xes-inc.com>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Message-ID: <917570204.96674.1408578333042.JavaMail.zimbra@xes-inc.com>
In-Reply-To: <1408577185.4058.77.camel@snotra.buserror.net>
References: <251532766.70336.1408150059026.JavaMail.zimbra@xes-inc.com>
 <1408577185.4058.77.camel@snotra.buserror.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mtd: fsl_ifc_nand: Probe partitions OF node
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
 David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
 Prabhakar Kushwaha <prabhakar@freescale.com>
List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list <linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/options/linux-mtd>,
 <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
 <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Wood" <scottwood@freescale.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 6:26:25 PM
> 
> On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 19:47 -0500, Aaron Sierra wrote:
> > Previously, the OF node defining the IFC NAND controller was being
> > passed to mtd_device_parse_register(), not the node defining the
> > partitions. This resulted in no OF-defined partitions being created.
> 
> This driver probes on "fsl,ifc-nand", not "fsl,ifc".  So how is it
> getting the controller node?
> 
> What does the device tree look like in which you're seeing this happen?
> 
> -Scott
> 

This is the node that is defined in my T1042 device tree:

		nand0@4,0 {
			#address-cells = <0>;
			#size-cells = <0>;
			compatible = "fsl,ifc-nand";
                        reg = <4 0x0 0x040000>;

			nand@0 {
				#address-cells = <1>;
				#size-cells = <2>;
				compatible = "micron,mt29f32g08";

				partition@0 {
					label = "NAND Filesystem";
					reg = <0 0x1 0x00000000>;
				};
			};
		};

It is based on a node used previously with the fsl_upm NAND driver on
a P5020:

		upm@4,0 {
			#address-cells = <0>;
			#size-cells = <0>;
			compatible = "fsl,upm-nand";
                        reg = <4 0x0 0x080000>;
                        fsl,upm-addr-offset = <0x10>;
                        fsl,upm-cmd-offset = <0x08>;
                        fsl,upm-wait-flags = <0x1>;
                        chip-delay = <50>;

			nand@0 {
				#address-cells = <1>;
				#size-cells = <2>;
				compatible = "micron,mt29f32g08";

				partition@0 {
					label = "NAND Filesystem";
					reg = <0 0x1 0x00000000>;
				};
			};
		};

The patch that I submitted is based on code from the fsl_upm driver:

	flash_np = of_get_next_child(upm_np, NULL);
	if (!flash_np)
		return -ENODEV;

[snip]

	ppdata.of_node = flash_np;
	ret = mtd_device_parse_register(&fun->mtd, NULL, &ppdata, NULL, 0);
err:
	of_node_put(flash_np);

-Aaron