On 23/08/18 11:29, Alban wrote:
Let say I have a device that use the following binding:
device {
compatible = "example-device";
#address-cells = <2>;
#size-cells = <1>;
child@0,0 {
reg = <0x0 0x0>;
...
};
child@1,2 {
reg = <0x1 0x2>;
...
};
};
Now this binding already use the node address space for something,
so putting a nvmem node as direct child would not work.
AFAIK, It should work but the we would get a DT warning this, as nvmem
does not use of_address based apis to parse this. Which should be
totally fixed!!
As discussed before once we add support to #address-cells and
#size-cells in nvmem core this should not be a problem.
--srini
Here it is
quiet clear as we have 2 address cells, however even if the number of
cells and the cells size would match it would still be conceptually
wrong as both bindings then use the same address space for something
different.
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
