Hello, rafal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:49:36 +0100: > On 03.11.2021 16:11, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > It's required to properly describe boards without connected WP pin (e.g. > > Asus GT-AC5300). > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/brcm,brcmnand.yaml | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/brcm,brcmnand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/brcm,brcmnand.yaml > > index dd5a64969e37..49c7860c0dad 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/brcm,brcmnand.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/brcm,brcmnand.yaml > > @@ -111,6 +111,11 @@ properties: > > earlier versions of this core that include WP > > type: boolean > > > + no-wp: > > + description: > > + This property marks boards with WP pin not connected to the NAND chip. > > + type: boolean > > I started rethinking this. Since we already hav "brcm,nand-has-wp" > (boolean), would makes more sense: > 1. Add "no-wp" boolean (as proposed in this patch) > 2. Add "wp" (or similar) with [0, 1] and deprecate "brcm,nand-has-wp" Maybe this should be a raw NAND wide property, at least in the bindings for now: nand-wp (such as nand-rb) and this property should contain the wp line id. For me, brcm,nand-has-wp means that the nand wp is connected, not that it "can be" connected. The fact that the controller has a wp pin or not should be internal to the controller driver (different compatible or hw version check). Thanks, Miquèl
