On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:25:32PM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
> On 10/27/2015 5:19 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:46:13AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> >>diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/ns2.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/ns2.dtsi
> >>index f603277..9610822 100644
> >>--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/ns2.dtsi
> >>+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/ns2.dtsi
> >>@@ -212,5 +212,19 @@
> >> compatible = "brcm,iproc-rng200";
> >> reg = <0x66220000 0x28>;
> >> };
> >>+
> >>+ nand: nand@66460000 {
> >>+ compatible = "brcm,nand-iproc", "brcm,brcmnand-v6.1";
> >
> >Technically, the binding says you should also have "brcm,brcmnand" as a
> >last resort. Otherwise (for the NAND parts):
> >
>
> I believe Anup was seeing issues when both "brcm,nand-iproc" and
> "brcm,brcmnand" are present.
>
> Note "brcm,nand-iproc" invokes 'iproc_nand_probe', which calls
> 'brcmnand_probe' in the end.
>
> "brcm,brcmnand" invokes 'brcmstb_nand_probe', which also calls
> 'brcmstb_probe', but without all the prep configuration required for
> "brcm,nand-iproc".
Ah, I forgot about that problem. That seems like an OF infrastructure
issue that could be fixed. We could lump these drivers back together,
and make sure that "brcm,nand-iproc" gets the priority in the
of_device_id list.
Or we could just relax the DT binding.
But wait, wouldn't cygnus already have that problem? You're using the
binding I suggested in arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm-cygnus.dtsi.
Oh, and I see we hacked this one in drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/Makefile:
# link order matters; don't link the more generic brcmstb_nand.o before the
# more specific iproc_nand.o, for instance
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
