Hi Scott, > -----Original Message----- > From: Prabhakar Kushwaha > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 10:50 AM > To: Prabhakar Kushwaha <prabhakar.kushwaha@xxxxxxx>; Scott Wood > <oss@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: dedekind1@xxxxxxxxx; computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Documentation: binding: Update endianness usage > > Hi Scott, > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: devicetree-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:devicetree- > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Prabhakar Kushwaha > > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 4:29 PM > > To: Scott Wood <oss@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: dedekind1@xxxxxxxxx; computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Documentation: binding: Update endianness usage > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Prabhakar Kushwaha > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 4:05 PM > > > To: 'Scott Wood' <oss@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Cc: dedekind1@xxxxxxxxx; computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Documentation: binding: Update endianness usage > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Scott Wood [mailto:oss@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 1:38 AM > > > > To: Prabhakar Kushwaha <prabhakar.kushwaha@xxxxxxx>; linux- > > > > mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Cc: dedekind1@xxxxxxxxx; computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: binding: Update endianness usage > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 09:45 +0000, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Scott Wood [mailto:oss@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 8:16 AM > > > > > > To: Prabhakar Kushwaha <prabhakar.kushwaha@xxxxxxx>; linux- > > > > > > mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > Cc: dedekind1@xxxxxxxxx; computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: binding: Update endianness usage > > > > > > > > > > > > I now see your patch to of_flash_probe... where is the non-IFC-specific > > > > > > binding that says the *parent* of a CFI node should be looked at for > this? > > > > > > Where in general are endian properties kept in the parent of the node > > with > > > > > > "reg"? The right answer is to add endianness to mtd-physmap.txt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Flashes are always littler endian. > > > > > > > > We wouldn't be having this discussion if that were true... This is about how > > > > it presents to the CPU, not about how the actual pins on the chip are > > > > numbered. > > > > > > > > > > Got your point :) > > > > > > > > It is because of IFC controller behavior, endianness is required. > > > > > So as per my understanding, this info should go in IFC binding. > > > > > > > > If the info should go in the IFC binding why is the code in a non-IFC-specific > > > > place? > > > > > > > > > > Now I understand your point. > > > So I should be moving endianness property detail in mtd-physmap.txt. > > > > > > Is my understanding correct? > > > > > > > A second thought, > > IFC binding was updated because there is no IFC-NOR driver. It uses generic > Flash > > framework. > > > > I am just trying to get more understanding. > > > > Do you have any comment/concern on this patch. > May I go ahead and request for the merger of updated patch i.e. > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10084331/ > Please let me know if you have any concern on this patch. --prabhakar ��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
