On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 8:43 AM Apurva Nandan <a-nandan@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On 21/09/21 2:46 am, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 06:06:51PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > >> Hello Apurva > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 07:57:12PM +0530, Apurva Nandan wrote: > >>> Convert spi-nand.txt binding to YAML format with an added example. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Apurva Nandan <a-nandan@xxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> .../devicetree/bindings/mtd/spi-nand.txt | 5 -- > >>> .../devicetree/bindings/mtd/spi-nand.yaml | 62 +++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >>> delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/spi-nand.txt > >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/spi-nand.yaml > >> Thanks for the bindings conversion patch. There are several comments > >> below. But before addressing them it would be better to also get a > >> response from Rob. > >> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/spi-nand.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/spi-nand.txt > >>> deleted file mode 100644 > >>> index 8b51f3b6d55c..000000000000 > >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/spi-nand.txt > >>> +++ /dev/null > >>> @@ -1,5 +0,0 @@ > >>> -SPI NAND flash > >>> - > >>> -Required properties: > >>> -- compatible: should be "spi-nand" > >>> -- reg: should encode the chip-select line used to access the NAND chip > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/spi-nand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/spi-nand.yaml > >>> new file mode 100644 > >>> index 000000000000..601beba8d971 > >>> --- /dev/null > >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/spi-nand.yaml > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ > >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > >>> +%YAML 1.2 > >>> +--- > >>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/spi-nand.yaml# > >>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > >>> + > >>> +title: SPI NAND flash > >>> + > >>> +maintainers: > >>> + - Apurva Nandan <a-nandan@xxxxxx> > >>> + > >>> +allOf: > >>> + - $ref: "mtd.yaml#" > >>> + > >>> +properties: > >>> + compatible: > >>> + const: spi-nand > >>> + > >>> + reg: > >>> + maxItems: 1 > >>> + > >>> + spi-max-frequency: true > >>> + spi-rx-bus-width: true > >>> + spi-tx-bus-width: true > >>> + rx-sample-delay-ns: true > >> Since it's an SPI-client device there are more than these properties > >> could be set for it. See the SPI-controller bindings schema: > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-controller.yaml > >> So there is two possible ways to make it more generic: > >> 1) Detach the spi-client part from the spi-controller.yaml bindings > >> into a dedicated DT-schema file and refer to that new scheme from > >> here. > > Yes, as mentioned there's patches doing this. But the above is fine. > > There's some value in defining here which properties are valid. > Yeah right > >> 2) Forget about these controller-specific properties and let the > >> parental SPI-controller bindings parsing them. Of course there must be > >> at least one of the next properties declared for it to work: > >> {unevaluatedProperties, additionalProperties}. > >> > >> It's up to Rob to decided which approach is better though... > >> > >>> + > >>> + '#address-cells': true > >>> + '#size-cells': true > >> Aren't they always equal to 1? > > No SPI nand devices >4GB? > Yeah, we have SPI NANDs >4GB, and "'#address-cells': true" allows those > sizes. > > > >>> + > >>> +additionalProperties: > >>> + type: object > >> I'd suggest to elaborate the way the partition sub-nodes looks > >> like, for instance, the node names, supported compatible names, > >> labels, etc. > > That should probably all be in mtd.yaml. The question here is whether > > partitions are always under a 'partitions' node. Maybe this is new > > enough that only the new way has to be supported. Though if mtd.yaml > > supported both forms, allowing both all the time is okay IMO. > > > > Rob > > I had added the "partition" node properties in the v1 patch, but as per > the reviews I removed it. > I think we can prefer having them in mtd.yaml if needed, in a separate > patch series. > Do you prefer the mtd.yaml changes as a part of this series or as a > separate patch? > > Other than that, I don't find any need for a v3 patch re-roll, do you agree? Yeah, I suppose not. Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> And actually, it's Miquel that should apply these 2 rather than Mark. Rob
