On 22/11/15 14:17, Simon Arlott wrote: > The BCM63268 has a NAND interrupt register with combined status and enable > registers. It also has a clock for the NAND controller that needs to be > enabled. > > Set up the device by enabling the clock, disabling and acking all > interrupts, then handle the CTRL_READY interrupt. > > Add a "device_remove" function to struct brcmnand_soc so that the clock > can be disabled when the device is removed. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Arlott <simon@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > On 22/11/15 21:59, Rob Herring wrote: >>>>> + * "brcm,nand-bcm63268" >>>>> + - compatible: should contain "brcm,nand-bcm<soc>", "brcm,nand-bcm63268" >>> >>> vendor,<soc>-device is preferred. > > The existing two bindings use brcm,nand-<soc>, but I've changed this one. Could we stick with the existing binding naming convention of using: brcm,nand-<soc> just so automated tools or other things can match this one too, and +1 for consistency? Other than, that, same comment as Jonas, why do we we need the device_remove callback to be called from the main driver down to this one? -- Florian -- 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
