2018-08-20 20:20 GMT+02:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:43:34 +0100
> Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> Overall am still not able to clear visualize on how MTD bindings with
>> nvmem cells would look in both partition and un-partition usecases?
>> An example DT would be nice here!!
>
> Something along those lines:
>
> mtdnode {
> nvmem-cells {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <1>;
>
> cell@0 {
> reg = <0x0 0x14>;
> };
> };
>
> partitions {
> compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <1>;
>
> partition@0 {
> reg = <0x0 0x20000>;
>
> nvmem-cells {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <1>;
>
> cell@0 {
> reg = <0x0 0x10>;
> };
> };
> };
> };
> };
If there'll be an agreement on the bindings: will you be willing to
merge Alban's patch even without support in the code for the above
(with the assumption that it will be added later)? My use-case is on
non-DT systems and creating nvmem devices corresponding to MTD
partitions if fine by me. I also don't have the means to test the
support for these bindings if I were to actually write them myself.
Best regards,
Bartosz Golaszewski
