Hi Krzysztof, On 9/18/19 8:51 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 12:07, Lukasz Luba <l.luba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Add compatible for Samsung k3qf2f20db LPDDR3 memory bindings. >> Introduce minor fixes in the old documentation. >> >> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <l.luba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ddr/lpddr3.txt | 9 ++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ddr/lpddr3.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ddr/lpddr3.txt >> index 3b2485b84b3f..49afe794daaa 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ddr/lpddr3.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ddr/lpddr3.txt >> @@ -1,7 +1,9 @@ >> * LPDDR3 SDRAM memories compliant to JEDEC JESD209-3C >> >> Required properties: >> -- compatible : Should be - "jedec,lpddr3" >> +- compatible : should be one of the following: >> + Generic default - "jedec,lpddr3". > > The convention is first compatible, then description. I gave you the > example to base on - at25. Why making it different? I have checked at25 that you pointed me to and also checked at24, which has a bit longer "compatible" section. I found that there are many "jedec,spi-nor" compatible devices, which I thought would be a better example for my "jedec,lpddr3". For example, two configurations, where you have a single labels or dual (with specific device) arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-rex-basic.dts: compatible = "sst,sst25vf016b", "jedec,spi-nor"; arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-ba16.dtsi: compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"; The 'compatible' in documentation for the "jedec,spi-nor" is slightly different (similar to at24). Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/jedec,spi-nor.txt It has a long explanation, which is also OK. So I thought that it is quite flexible what you put in there. I have also checked Cadance QSPI controller. Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/cadence-quadspi.txt The controller might be built-in into different vendor SoC's and the "compatible" is ready to reflect it in similar fashion but with a short explanation in this section. Therefore, what you see in the patch draw heavily on Cadence's qspi, with a bit of inspiration from jedec,spi-nor usage. Should I change it to at25 "compatible" style and send next patch? PS. Thank you for taking the other two patches. I will not respond in their threads to keep the traffic low. Regards, Lukasz
