On 23/11/15 18:22, Florian Fainelli wrote: > 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? I could submit another patch renaming the existing bindings to brcm,<soc>-nand, and add that to the drivers? Then they'd be consistent. > 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? I'll add a "struct brcmnand_soc *brcmnand_get_socdata(struct device *)" instead so that I can access the soc data before calling brcmnand_remove. -- Simon Arlott -- 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
