On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:50:07 +0100 Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 20/08/18 19:20, Boris Brezillon 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: > > > This looks good to me. > > 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>; > > }; > > }; > > }; > > }; > > }; > > > Just curious...Is there a reason why we can't do it like this?: > Is this because of issue of #address-cells and #size-cells Or mtd > bindings always prefer subnodes? > > mtdnode { > reg = <0x0123000 0x40000>; > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <1>; > cell@0 { > compatible = "nvmem-cell"; > reg = <0x0 0x14>; > }; > > partitions { > compatible = "fixed-partitions"; > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <1>; > > partition@0 { > reg = <0x0 0x20000>; > cell@0 { > compatible = "nvmem-cell"; > reg = <0x0 0x10>; > }; > }; > }; > }; It's because partitions were initially directly defined under the mtd node, so, if you have an old DT you might have something like: mtdnode { reg = <0x0123000 0x40000>; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>; partition@0 { reg = <0x0 0x20000>; ... }; ... }; If we use such a DT with this patch applied, the NVMEM framework will consider MTD partitions as nvmem cells, which is not what we want. ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/