On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 11:04:12 +0100 Cédric Le Goater <clg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Boris, > > On 01/06/2017 09:49 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Hi Cédric, > > > > On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 14:39:14 +0100 > > Cédric Le Goater <clg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Hello Cyrille, Boris > >> > >> On 01/04/2017 06:50 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >>> Cyrille, Cédric, > >>> > >>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:52:07 +0100 > >>> Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Anyway, since the review is done now, on my side I won't ask you to remove > >>>>>> or split the support of the 'Command' mode in a separated patch. > >>>>>> I let you do as you want, if it help you to introduce some part of the > >>>>>> support of this 'Command' mode now even if not completed yet, no problem on > >>>>>> my side :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I was just giving you some pieces of advice for the next time if you want > >>>>>> to speed up the review of another patch introducing new features. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> However, I will just ask you one more version handling the dummy cycles > >>>>>> properly as it would help us for the global maintenance of the spi-nor > >>>>>> subsystem. This is the only mandatory modification I ask you, after that I > >>>>>> think it would be ok for me and since Marek has already reviewed your > >>>>>> driver, it would be ready to be merged into the spi-nor tree. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sending a v5 which should address your comments. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have removed the label property and will start a new thread in the > >>>>> topic. Any hints on which binding we could add this label prop ? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Here I will provide just few thoughts about this new DT property. I don't > >>>> pretend this is what should be done. I still think other mtd maintainers > >>>> should be involved to discuss this topic. > >>>> > >>>> First the DT property name "label" sounds good to me: it is consistent with > >>>> "label" DT property used to name mtd partitions. However, I don't think it > >>>> should be documented in jedec,spi-nor.txt but *maybe* in partition.txt as > >>>> the purpose of this new DT property seems very close to the "label" > >>>> property of partition nodes: let's think about some hard-disk device > >>>> (/dev/sda) and its partition devices (/dev/sdaX). > >> > >> yes this is very similar. I first looked at introducing a name to > >> an overall containing partition but the partition binding is not > >> designed for that. There are constraints on the start address and > >> the size which does not fit the purpose. > >> > >>> Hm, partition.txt may not be appropriate here. We're not documenting > >>> the MTD partition binding, but the MTD device one. Maybe we should > >>> create mtd.txt and put all generic MTD dev properties here. > >>>> > >>>> Besides, the concept of this memory label is not limited to SPI NOR but > >>>> could also apply to NAND memories or any other MTD handled memories. > >>> > >>> Definitely. Actually I think I'll need that for the Atmel NAND > >>> controller driver rework I'm currently working on, to keep mtdparts > >>> parser happy even after changing the NAND device naming scheme. > >>> > >>>> Hence the DT property might be handled by drivers/mtd/ofpart.c instead of > >>>> being handled by spi-nor.c or by each SPI NOR memory controller driver. > >>> > >>> Actually, that could be done at the mtdcore level in > >>> mtd_set_dev_defaults() [1]. > >> > >> that would be perfect. > >> > >>>> Finally, I guess we should take time to discuss and all agree what should > >>>> be done precisely before introducing a new DT property because one general > >>>> rule with DTB files is that users should be able to update their kernel > >>>> image (zImage, uImage, ...) without changing their DTB: device trees should > >>>> be backward compatible. Hence if we make a wrong choice today, we are > >>>> likely to have to live with it and keep supporting that bad choice. > >>> > >>> Rob already acked the patch, so, if all MTD maintainers agree that this > >>> new property is acceptable, we should be fine ;-). > >> > >> yes but we would need to move the binding property to another file. > >> What I sent applied to "jedec,spi-nor" and we want to generalize the > >> property to other devices. > > > > We could create an new file under > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/, or we could rename > > partition.txt into something else (generic.txt or common.txt) and > > document more than the partition binding. > > OK. > > I guess that creating a new file for a single property is a little > overkill or do we expect more common properties at the device level ? Not that I can think of, but we never know. > In that case, may be we could keep the partition.txt file and add > a common.txt file. If not, common.txt seems to be a good name. > Waiting a little for others to chime in. > > > > Can you take care of that (in a separate patch series of course)? > > sure, and will you send : > > http://code.bulix.org/p019ah-107877 > > in a separate patch ? No, you should make it part of your series ;-). -- 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
