From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (E23SMTP01.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.162]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e23smtp01.au.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A241DDEEC for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:04:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from d23relay03.au.ibm.com (d23relay03.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.234]) by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l8714ukT009176 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:04:56 +1000 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (d23av01.au.ibm.com [9.190.250.242]) by d23relay03.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l8714riY4419680 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:04:53 +1000 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av01.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l8714rNH030485 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:04:53 +1000 Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:04:49 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: Document and implement an improved flash device binding Message-ID: <20070907010449.GL26079@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070829061300.GF3206@localhost.localdomain> <143067874eed1b4ee9c75d5272bb5958@kernel.crashing.org> <20070905025907.GG17189@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 03:28:35PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >>> + - bank-width : Width (in bytes) of the flash bank. Equal to > >>> the > >>> + device width times the number of interleaved chips. > >>> + - device-width : (optional) Width of a single flash chip. If > >>> + omitted, assumed to be equal to 'bank-width'. > >> > >> Let's have bank-width optional instead, it's more natural > >> that way for the common case of just one chip. Or, you can > >> say that either is optional. > > > > No, I'm disinclined to do that since bank-width is the primary bit of > > information that the driver needs. > > Bzzzzt. That's not what the device tree is about; it should > describe the hardware, it shouldn't be just a config file for > the current Linux drivers. Yes, yes, so you've said many times. But where there are multiple ways of encoding exactly the same information, I don't see that we can't use driver convenience as a deciding factor. > Besides, like I said, for the common case where your flash > chips aren't interleaved, it makes way more sense to talk > about device-width than it does to call it bank-width. -- 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