On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:53:56 +0100
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
The data is stored on the MTD, so the nvmem provider is the MTD device.
I don't think it is a good idea to have a virtual device in the DT to
accommodate the nvmem API.
> > 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?
It is doable, but beside making the code more complex, AFAIU that would
goes against DT best practice as no such device exists in the hardware.
The DT should only represent that this device contains data that can be
requested by a driver, and ideally in the same way for all kind of
storages.
Alban
Attachment:
pgpJkqecG6deg.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
