From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.innovsys.com ([66.115.232.196] helo=mail.innovsys.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1JZ5xg-0001dy-WB for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:00:17 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: OF compatible MTD platform RAM driver ? Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:00:10 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20080311004545.GI11559@localhost.localdomain> References: <200803101606.39184.laurentp@cse-semaphore.com> <20080311004545.GI11559@localhost.localdomain> From: "Rune Torgersen" To: "David Gibson" Cc: Laurent Pinchart , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, ben@simtec.co.uk List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , David Gibson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 12:00:22PM -0500, Rune Torgersen wrote: >> We ran ito the same issue. >> We did option 3, as it was efinetly the easiest, >=20 > I think this is the best option in principle. >=20 >> here is the sram entry in our dts: >=20 > Except that your implementation of it is not good. >=20 > You're relying on the old obsolete flash binding with the "probe-type" > field. The solution should be adapted to the new approach which uses > values in the "compatible" field to indicate various sorts of flash > device. Yea, I know. But it was the easiest way of doing it at the time we did our port.... In a timecrunch, easier is sometimes better than correct. :)