[...] > >> That said, if we can build this dynamically, can't we always do so, and > >> never need this property? > > > > Since board like at91sam9x5, sama5d3xek has a rom lookup table. And > > the sama5d4ek has no rom lookup table. > > To present this, I make this property as optional. > > > > But yes, the pmecc lookup table related properties can be removed as > > driver can build it in runtime. > > The cost is we need to use more memory to store the table. > > In precisely, the table need to 32k bytes memory for 512-sector, and 64k > bytes for 1024-sector. > > Also I spend time to testing the performance of this version. > Compare with the version which use the SRAM rom lookup table, this > version (build table in runtim) cost about 5~10ms more. > > So I prefer to keep this property as optional. Sure. It sounds like it's always possible to ignore it later if we choose to. I just wouldn't mention what the driver should do in the binding -- whether or not the property is optional, the behaviour of the driver is not a detail of the device. Thanks, Mark. -- 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
