From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from imap.sh.mvista.com (unknown [63.81.120.155]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F25DDE46 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 23:14:32 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <46641093.7080404@ru.mvista.com> Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:16:03 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Create "rom" (MTD) device prpmc2800 References: <7fc919fce0761f861be3069a853d3169@bga.com> <4662EAA9.70104@ru.mvista.com> <1180905120.31677.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <03427692d8865878b0eb2a91e7f6969e@kernel.crashing.org> In-Reply-To: <03427692d8865878b0eb2a91e7f6969e@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Milton Miller , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello. Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> Regarding physical address ranges for the flash mapping, I suppose the >> best is to define a property for flash chips for it. > There is, namely "reg". How to best describe flash chips > interleaved on the bus is still an open problem. And things > like combining two sequential in address space flash chips > into a virtual one, or describing flash "partitions" doesn't > belong in the device tree at all; it is a policy thing, not > a hardware thing. Gah, it's becoming worse and worse... While I would agree with that argument, not having flash partition table in the device tree makes things even more ugly -- as we *already* can't use platform device to pass that info, we'll have to either force the user to supply that via the kernel option, or add more kludgery to Linux/MTD. :-/ > Segher WBR, Sergei