Hi Michael,
Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu, 20 May 2021 13:09:05
+0200:
> Am 2021-05-19 20:26, schrieb Miquel Raynal:
> [..]
>
> > +examples:
> > + - |
> > + smcc: memory-controller@e000e000 {
> > + compatible = "arm,pl353-smc-r2p1", "arm,primecell";
> > + reg = <0xe000e000 0x0001000>,
> > + <0xe1000000 0x5000000>;
> > + clock-names = "memclk", "apb_pclk";
> > + clocks = <&clkc 11>, <&clkc 44>;
> > + ranges = <0x0 0x0 0xe1000000 0x1000000 /* Nand CS region */
> > + 0x1 0x0 0xe2000000 0x2000000 /* SRAM/NOR CS0 region */
> > + 0x2 0x0 0xe4000000 0x2000000>; /* SRAM/NOR CS1 region > */
> > + #address-cells = <2>;
> > + #size-cells = <1>;
> > +
> > + nand0: nand-controller@0,0 {
>
> what about nfc (or nfc0) here? If I use this reference on my board it
> looks kinda odd:
While the node name (nand-controller@) is fixed, the label IIRC is
totally arbitrary, so any string here should do the trick. I agree that
nand0 is rather confusing and I don't like it much, just kept that for
legacy reasons (many DT declare the NAND controller and label it
"nand"). I'm fine changing that to nfc0 though, I'll update the
example.
>
> &nand {
> status = "okay";
>
> nand@0 {
> reg = <0>;
> nand-use-soft-ecc-engine;
> nand-ecc-algo = "bch";
> };
> };
>
> -michael
Thanks,
Miquèl
