On Mar 13, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 03/12/2014 11:30 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?
>
> It is but not more generic than "flash". :-)
>
Right.
> >FWIW, quite a few other SoCs have chosen 'nand' for the node name, including
> >the other Armada variants. Was this a wrong choice?
>
> I guess. There's a lot of wrong choices now all over the
> arch/arm/boot/dts/ because people are probably not aware of the necessary
> documentation such as http://devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage (pointing to
> ePAPR and having a passage on the generic device names too).
>
OK, I guess it's fine. Let's try to do things from now on, at least. I'll fix
this and send a new series.
--
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
