On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 23:27:48 +0200
Alban <albeu@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 20:20:38 +0200
> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > 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:
>
> We must also have a compatible string on the nvmem-cells node to make
> sure we don't clash with the old style MTD partitions,
That's not possible, because we don't have a reg prop in the
nvmem-cells node.
> or some other
> device specific binding.
This one might happen.
Was Rob okay with this compatible? If he was, I guess we can go for
this binding. Srinivas, any objection?
>
> >
> > mtdnode {
> > nvmem-cells {
> compatible = "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 {
> compatible = "nvmem-cells";
> > #address-cells = <1>;
> > #size-cells = <1>;
> >
> > cell@0 {
> > reg = <0x0 0x10>;
> > };
> > };
> > };
> > };
> > };
>
>
> Alban
