On 18/04/18 13:32, Alban wrote:
I was also suggesting you to use nvmem-cell subnode, but make it a
proper nvmem provider device, rather than reusing its parent device.
You would end up some thing like this in dt.
flash@0 {
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
compatible = "s25sl064a";
reg = <0>;
nvmem-cells {
compatible = "mtd-nvmem";
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
calibration: calib@404 {
reg = <0x404 0x10>;
};
};
};
But the root cause is in the nvmem binding, this conflict could exists
No, the root cause is because of passing wrong device instance to nvmem
core. And trying to workaround is the actual issue.
with any device type, not just MTD. I don't understand why we would want
such workarounds instead of just fixing the problem once and for all.
AFAIU, This is not a workaround, this is how nvmem provider bindings are
and all providers should try to follow it.
I still do not understand what is the issue in making nvmem-cells node a
proper nvmem provider device?
--srini
--
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
