On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:01:40PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 05/08/2015 12:43 PM, Brian Norris wrote: > >On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:00:12AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > >>Equally, "nor-jedec" doesn't sound like the right name. It doesn't > >>differentiate between SPI and parallel NOR flash, which presumably > >>need different compatible values, since the programming model is > >>quite different, and the compatible value is supposed to > >>define/imply the SW-visible programming model. > > > >It's definitely for SPI only. There was much discussion about this a > >few months back. Somewhere along the way, it was mentioned that the > >context (SPI slave is a child of SPI master) would make this clear. I'm > >still not sure why we didn't end up with something more descriptive, > >though, like "spi-nor,nor-jedec". > > > >I'm open to change, as this binding is new in 4.1-rc1. > > I don't believe compatible values should be interpreted according to > context; compatible value matching isn't implemented that way AFAIK, > and I'm not aware of any precedent for it to work that way. For SPI slaves, they are always nested within their SPI master/bus node. The master driver chooses how to probe its children. So there is some context-sensitivity. > Did the discussion involve the core DT maintainers? If so, whatever > they decided can stick. Otherwise, the discussion should be rubn by > them. Yes. I never got an "ack", but Mark Rutland commented a few times and didn't seem to object to the name. e.g.: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2015-March/058275.html Brian -- 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
