On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:51:40PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 09:30:33PM +0200, Boris BREZILLON wrote: > > AFAICT nothing, but the same goes for the ECC requirements, and we've > > recently added DT bindings to define these requirements. > > I'm not telling we should drop these ECC requirements bindings (actually > > I'm using them :-)), but what's different with the timings requirements ? > > ECC requirements are almost always something that has to be matched to > the bootloader (since the bootloader typicaly reads the NAND to boot), > so it is sensible to put that in the DT +1 You beat me to this :) > The timings are a property of the chip, and if they can be detected > they should be. IMHO, the main purpose of a DT property would be to > lower the speed if, for some reason, the board cannot support the > device's full speed. Agreed. Now, we still have the open question of whether we can autodetect timing modes easily for non-ONFI chips. > > Indeed, I based it on the ONFI NAND timings mode model, but AFAIK > > (tell me if I'm wrong), it should work because most of the timings > > are min requirements. This means, even if you provide slower > > signals transitions, the NAND will work as expected. > > IIRC for ONFI a device must always work in the mode 0 timings, without > requiring a command? I believe so. FYI, despite the name of the binding, we are mostly interested in non-ONFI NAND here. Brian -- 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
