On 28/10/2022 03:47, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 27 Oct 2022 10:51:29 -0400: > >> On 27/10/2022 09:50, Miquel Raynal wrote: >>> Hi Krzysztof, >>> >>> krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 27 Oct 2022 09:24:24 -0400: >>> >>>> On 27/10/2022 09:18, Miquel Raynal wrote: >>>>> Hi Vadym, >>>>> >>>>>>>>> +patternProperties: >>>>>>>>> + "^nand@[0-3]$": >>>>>>>>> + type: object >>>>>>>>> + properties: >>>>>>>>> + reg: >>>>>>>>> + minimum: 0 >>>>>>>>> + maximum: 3 >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + nand-rb: >>>>>>>>> + minimum: 0 >>>>>>>>> + maximum: 1 >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + nand-ecc-strength: >>>>>>>>> + enum: [1, 4, 8] >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + nand-on-flash-bbt: true >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + nand-ecc-mode: true >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + nand-ecc-algo: >>>>>>>>> + description: | >>>>>>>>> + This property is essentially useful when not using hardware ECC. >>>>>>>>> + Howerver, it may be added when using hardware ECC for clarification >>>>>>>>> + but will be ignored by the driver because ECC mode is chosen depending >>>>>>>>> + on the page size and the strength required by the NAND chip. >>>>>>>>> + This value may be overwritten with nand-ecc-strength property. >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + nand-ecc-step-size: >>>>>>>>> + description: | >>>>>>>>> + Marvell's NAND flash controller does use fixed strength >>>>>>>>> + (1-bit for Hamming, 16-bit for BCH), so the actual step size >>>>>>>>> + will shrink or grow in order to fit the required strength. >>>>>>>>> + Step sizes are not completely random for all and follow certain >>>>>>>>> + patterns described in AN-379, "Marvell SoC NFC ECC". >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + label: >>>>>>>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + partitions: >>>>>>>>> + type: object >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's not what I asked for. Like four times I asked you to add here >>>>>>>> unevaluatedProperties: false and I never said that ref to partition.yaml >>>>>>>> should be removed and you... instead remove that ref. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You need to define here children and specify their ref. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You must use unevaluatedProperties: false here. So this is fifth time I >>>>>>>> am writing this feedback. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is a bit confusing that it is needed to define "partitions" and "label" rules particulary >>>>>>> in this nand controller instead of some common place like nand-chip.yaml, these properties >>>>>>> are common also for the other nand controllers. >>>>>> >>>>>> No one speaks about label, I never commented about label, I think... >>>>>> >>>>>> If you think the property is really generic and every NAND controller >>>>>> bindings implement it, then feel free to include them there, in a >>>>>> separate patch. It sounds sensible, but I did not check other bindings. >>>>> >>>>> FYI, label is already defined in mtd/mtd.yaml. >>>> >>>> Which is not included here and in nand-controller.yaml >>> >>> Maybe nand-chip.yaml should? >> >> mtd.yaml looks a bit more than that - also allows nvmem nodes. Maybe >> let's just add label to nand-chip? > > I don't get the reason behind this proposal, mtd.yaml really is > kind of a definition of generic properties any mtd device might > have, so duplicating label (or whatever else inside) does not seem > legitimate to me. The jedec,spi-nor.yaml file already references it for > instance. spi-nor is not a NAND chip... By including mtd.yaml in nand-chip you also allow the NVMEM properties which are not applicable. > >>>>> Partitions do not need to be defined in your binding, just don't put >>>>> any in your example and you'll be fine. These partitions are either >>>>> static and may be described in the DT (see >>>>> mtd/partition/partition.yaml) or there is some dynamic discovery >>>>> involved and a proper parser shall be referenced (parsers have their >>>>> own binding). >>>> >>>> I don't think this is correct. Basically you allow any node to be under >>>> partitions as there is no schema validating them (without compatibles). >>> >>> Sorry if that was unclear, what I meant is: partitions should not be >>> defined in the bindings for Marvell NAND controller because they should >>> be defined somewhere else already. >> >> Ah, right. Then it seems reasonable. >> >>> >>> NAND controller subnodes should define the storage devices (the >>> flashes themselves) connected to the controller. "nand-chip.yaml" >>> describes generic properties for these. Additional subnodes are allowed >>> and expected to be partitions (this is not enforced anywhere I think), >>> they should use one of the existing compatibles to define the parser. >>> The most common parser is named fixed-partitions and has its own >>> compatible. Every parser references partitions.yaml. >>> >>> There are a few controller bindings however which reference >>> partition.yaml anyway, probably to make the examples validation work, >>> I'm not sure it should be done like that though: >>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.0/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-nand.yaml >>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.0/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml >> >> >> Yes, so the nand-chip implementation (like Marvell NAND) could reference >> the parser and we would be done. If it doesn't, then we must have >> generic partitions in the nand-chip. > > In this case, I am not aware of any parser that would be relevant. > > In the generic case, should we really reference a parser in particular? > If yes then maybe we should make a yaml file that just gathers all the > parsers and include it within mtd.yaml (and have it referenced in > nand-chip.yaml). What do you think? > Not all MTD devices have partitions so putting this into mtd.yaml does not look correct. Adding it into nand-chip seems fine. Best regards, Krzysztof
