On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:53:26PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote: > On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:40:50AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 08:01:41AM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote: > > > On 28.11.2014 02:48, Huang Shijie wrote: > > > >On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 03:18:49PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote: > > > >>This sentence "We support only one NAND chip now" is not true any more. > > > >>Multiple chips are supported. So lets remove this sentence to not > > > > > > > >The gpmi can only supports one chip. Of course, there are maybe two dies > > > >in this single chip. > > > > > > Now I'm a bit confused. The i.MX6 supports 4 chips select signals. And isn't > > > "two dies in this single chip" not practically the same as connecting 2 (or > > > more) chips (same device) to multiple chip selects of the SoC? Where is the > > > difference here? > > The "one chip" here is means the "one package" (TSOP or BGA ....). > > Then why is this even in the DT binding doc? Isn't that a board-level > constraint (and not a chip property) which should be obvious to the > user? If so, then should we just drop the language? Or at a minimum, > make it more specific so it doesn't confuse readers. yes. It is okay to send a patch to make it more clear. > > > (In logic, "two dies in this single chip" is same as connecting 2 chips > > to the gpmi.) > > ...which means that logically, you can connect more than one chip to the > GPMI, right? The gpmi can only connect with one physical chip now, but there maybe two DIEs in this chip. thanks Huang Shijie -- 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
