From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:12:54 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Create "rom" (MTD) device prpmc2800 Message-ID: <20070613061254.GG16148@localhost.localdomain> References: <7878cf1aec340b976b90b86b9e83bf18@kernel.crashing.org> <20070612044246.GC4198@localhost.localdomain> <9fbd7a7f5cdde58768569ab23c7aec7c@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <9fbd7a7f5cdde58768569ab23c7aec7c@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:50:25PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > So, what you're suggesting is a subnode for each described partition? > > I'm saying this is a reasonable way to describe the regions > of flash the firmware itself cares about. > > This isn't anything new; it is done like this on some > Apple systems, for example. > > > Seems an awfully verbose way of going about it, > > Not verbose, but flexible, and in line with everything > else about the device tree. > > > and I don't see what > > it buys us over the partitions/partition-names pair of properties. > > It is extensible. It makes parsing trivial. It > represents a flash partition in a way similar to how > a "whole" flash device is represented. Hrm, ok. Between you and BenH you've convinced me. I'll try to come up with something. I think we'll still need to support the old properties as backwards compatibility thing. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson