On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:17:05 +0100
Alban <albeu@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 21:22:20 +0100
> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 20:50:21 +0100
> > Alban <albeu@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Add the binding to expose MTD partitions as nvmem providers.
> >
> > Looks good. Maybe you should take the case you describe in your
> > cover-letter into account and add an extra layer: add an nvmem sub-node
> > containing the nvmem cells, so that you can expose nvmem cells directly
> > under master MTD devices (and not only partitions).
>
> I think that would be the better solution. This can be done
> independently, once we agree on a binding we just have to fix
> of_nvmem_cell_get(). My suggestion would be to have the new binding
> looking like this:
>
> nvmem-device@10 {
> ...
> nvmem-provider;
> nvmem-cells {
> compatible = "nvmem-cells";
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <1>;
>
> nvmem-cell@100 {
> label = "mac-address";
> reg = <0x100 0x200>;
> }
>
> ...
> }
> }
>
> I would also suggest making the "nvmem-provider" property mandatory
> to indicate that the device provides this capability. Up to now all
> nvmem providers only support this API but I think there might be more
> multi function devices in the future.
If you enforce the name of the child node (here nvmem-cells), you don't
need this extra nvmem-provider property. Am I missing something?
--
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
