On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 09:29:55PM -0000, Simon Arlott wrote: > On Fri, December 4, 2015 16:04, Jonas Gorski wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Simon Arlott <simon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> + * "brcm,nand-bcm6368" > >> + - compatible: should contain "brcm,nand-bcm<soc>", "brcm,nand-bcm6368" > >> + - reg: (required) the 'NAND_INTR_BASE' register range, with combined status > >> + and enable registers, and boot address registers > >> + - reg-names: (required) "nand-intr-base" > > > > Can't we use the same name as bcm63138, i.e. nand-int-base? > > Brian, > > Before I change this, is there anything else in the patch series that needs to > be changed? No, I think you covered my comments in your latest series: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2015-December/064004.html I don't know about Jonas's comments about using bcm6368, even though bcm6368 is a much older NAND core. I had similar thoughts when Florian first proposed it, but I'm not sure I have a much better suggestion. We're trying to describe two slightly different tracks of IP: the core NAND controller, which has a defined revision (2.x, 4.0, etc.), and the accessory interrupt bits, which are mostly constant across a product line / class of SoCs and aren't really versioned. So I guess I'm OK with the usage of the bcm6368 compatible string. Regards, 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
