On 7 November 2014 16:49, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 09:21:39 -0600 > Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Boris Brezillon >> <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Perhaps some commit msg? > > Yes, I was just lazy and though this series would make another round > anyway :-). > > I'll add a commit log to all my commits... > >> >> While this binding seems mostly okay to me, this is the 2nd memory >> controller binding I've looked at in the last day [1]. There are >> probably some others already as well. This makes me think we need a >> generic binding here. At least the node structure and how we define >> chip selects should be common. > > Sure. > Any suggestion ? I unfortunately cannot see much benefit to a generic binding, but maybe that's because the one in T124 is a bit special? I'm very interested in hearing proposals though. Thanks, Tomeu -- 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
