From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: add "nor-jedec" flash compatible binding Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 10:00:12 -0600 Message-ID: <554CDD8C.7050000@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1431066098-19821-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1431066098-19821-1-git-send-email-zajec5-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Cc: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Thierry Reding , Alexandre Courbot , linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mtd-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 05/08/2015 12:21 AM, Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki wrote: > Starting with commits > 8ff16cf ("Documentation: devicetree: m25p80: add "nor-jedec" binding"= ) > 1103b85 ("mtd: m25p80: bind to "nor-jedec" ID, for auto-detection") > we have "nor-jedec" binding indicating support for JEDEC identificati= on. The documentation looks quite incomplete. "nor-jedec" sounds like it's=20 intended to be something generic. As such, it should be documented in=20 e.g. Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nor-jedec.txt, not buried in= =20 one particular flash device's binding. If it's not intended to be=20 generic, why isn't the existing "winbond,w25q32dw" enough? Equally, "nor-jedec" doesn't sound like the right name. It doesn't=20 differentiate between SPI and parallel NOR flash, which presumably need= =20 different compatible values, since the programming model is quite=20 different, and the compatible value is supposed to define/imply the=20 SW-visible programming model.