From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <4671390D.1060606@ru.mvista.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:48:13 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Create "rom" (MTD) device prpmc2800 References: <7878cf1aec340b976b90b86b9e83bf18@kernel.crashing.org> <20070612044246.GC4198@localhost.localdomain> <9fbd7a7f5cdde58768569ab23c7aec7c@kernel.crashing.org> In-Reply-To: <9fbd7a7f5cdde58768569ab23c7aec7c@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev , David Gibson List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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. First you're saying that nodes should correspont to *real* devices, then it turns out that there have been precedents for the nodes corresponding to completely virtual entities? ;-) >>Seems an awfully verbose way of going about it, > Not verbose, but flexible, and in line with everything Yes, I'd agree about more flexibility... > else about the device tree. How about your earlier arguments against the representation of flashes? >>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 Excellent -- previously my arguments about more simplicity for representing flash itself were sent to /dev/null. > represents a flash partition in a way similar to how > a "whole" flash device is represented. Except it's not a device. :-) > Segher WBR, Sergei