From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Jackson Subject: Re: DT GPMC SRAM and NOR flash support ? Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:34:08 +0000 Message-ID: <51138320.8040706@mimc.co.uk> References: <510BF3D3.3000304@mimc.co.uk> <510BF766.5090608@ti.com> <510C19FC.8090906@mimc.co.uk> <5111304C.7090706@mimc.co.uk> <511134C8.8000008@ti.com> <511137CF.1090706@mimc.co.uk> <51113C74.4070607@ti.com> <51137923.4070301@mimc.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mercuryimc.plus.com ([80.229.200.144]:48316 "EHLO centos1.newflow.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754959Ab3BGKeJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2013 05:34:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: <51137923.4070301@mimc.co.uk> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Jon Hunter Cc: "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , Afzal Mohammed On 07/02/13 09:51, Mark Jackson wrote: > Okay ... I have made some progress, but it's not ideal. > But the physmap driver (of_flash_probe()) is unable to use this information. It seems that although > I can call of_flash_probe() from my NOR setup code, the platform_device being reference is wrong. > > The platform_device passed to my gpmc_probe_nor_child() routine from gpmc_probe_dt() points to my > gpmc entry (above), but the physmap probe requires its own DT entry (rather than a node child such > as my NOR entry with the GPMC device entry). > > So I need to have any extra entry in the DT file as follows:- > > nor-flash@08000000 { > compatible = "spansion,s29gl064n90t", "cfi-flash"; > reg = <0x08000000 0x00800000>; > bank-width = <2>; > }; > > So the GPMC entry handles all the chip select and timing setup, but the 2nd entry is the only one > the physmap driver can see. > > Would it be acceptable to re-code of_flash_probe() to allow either a child device_node to be passed > or a platform_device ? Or is it acceptable to simply state the gpmc portion is for setting up the chip access, and you *do* need a separate physmap section ? That's certainly easier, and it works without any changes to the physmap driver. Regards Mark J.