On 01/17/2017 04:49 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 17 January 2017 at 14:57, Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Le 17/01/2017 à 14:16, Rafał Miłecki a écrit : >>> On 17 January 2017 at 12:03, Uwe Kleine-König >>> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> The MR25 family doesn't support JEDEC, so they need explicit mentioning >>>> in the list of supported spi IDs. This makes it possible to add these >>>> using for example: >>>> >>>> compatible = "everspin,mr25h40"; >>> >>> (...) >>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/jedec,spi-nor.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/jedec,spi-nor.txt >>>> index 2c91c03e7eb0..3e920ec5c4d3 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/jedec,spi-nor.txt >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/jedec,spi-nor.txt >>>> @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ Required properties: >>>> at25df641 >>>> at26df081a >>>> mr25h256 >>>> + mr25h10 >>>> + mr25h40 >>>> mx25l4005a >>>> mx25l1606e >>>> mx25l6405d >>> >>> Uh, this is getting a never-ending-story... >>> If these chipsets don't support JEDEC, should we keep them in jedec,spi-nor.txt? >>> >> >> Maybe not but I think the new compatible strings should be documented >> somewhere. Currently jedec,spi-nor.txt already documents all the >> "m25p*-nonjedec" memories. So maybe just renaming the jedec,spi-nor.txt >> file into spi-nor.txt or mtd,spi-nor.txt could be a solution. Otherwise, we >> can let it as is. I have no idea of what would be the best solution. >> >> To be honest, I don't always fully understand the DT policy/philosophy and >> its requirements. I just thought when a new property or a new value is >> introduced it has to be documented. >> Generally speaking, when DT is involved in some series of patches, it often >> generates many discussions about the proper way to do thinks and about >> choosing the best between many technically functional solutions. >> >> If you think jedec,spi-nor.txt is not suited to document the new value for >> the compatible string, why not, I perfectly understand your point. >> >> I don't mind choosing another way. I just want to be sure that, if not all, >> most of people agree on that solution and if possible, it is compliant with >> DT policy so everybody is happy and works together. >> That's why I involve DT people, even if it's a small detail, so they can >> advise us. >> >> Anyway, at some point we have to take a decision to carry on thinks. >> So actually, I would like to avoid a never-ending story :) > > Sounds OK to me, I'm not DT expert though ;) So ok, we already have a few non-jedec bindings documented in jedec,spi-nor,text . Let's just apply this patch and if someone wants to split the binding document, patch is welcome. Good ? -- Best regards, Marek Vasut -- 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
