On 05/08/2015 02:15 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
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.
That means it might be possible to implement context-sensitivity.
However, it does not mean context-sensitivity is or should be implemented.
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
Nobody pointed out in that thread the "jedec-nor" isn't remotely
SPI-specific.
--
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
