On Mar 13, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 03/12/2014 06:16 PM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>
> >The Armada 38x SoC family has a NAND controller, compatible
> >with the controller in Armada 370/375/XP SoCs. Add support for
> >it in the devicetree file.
>
> >Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >---
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi | 10 ++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> >diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi
> >index 76cc27e..18d8f80 100644
> >--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi
> >+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi
> >@@ -345,6 +345,16 @@
> > clocks = <&mainpll>;
> > clock-output-names = "nand";
> > };
> >+
> >+ nand@d0000 {
>
> ePAPR standard [1] tells us:
>
> The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting the function of
> the device and not its precise programming model. If appropriate, the name
> should be one of the following choices:
>
> [...]
> • flash
>
I think 'nand' is generic enough, isn't it?
In any case, it seems sane to distinguish a NAND flash from a NOR flash,
from a SPI flash.
FWIW, quite a few other SoCs have chosen 'nand' for the node name, including
the other Armada variants. Was this a wrong choice?
--
Ezequiel García, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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
