Hi Roger, On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:03:02 +0200 Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 26/10/15 22:49, Brian Norris wrote: > > > > Others have been looking at using GPIOs for the ready/busy pin too. At a > > minimum, we need an updated DT binding doc for this, since I see you're > > adding this via device tree in a later patch (I don't see any DT binding > > patch for this; but I could just be overlooking it). It'd also be great > > if this support was moved to nand_dt_init() so other platforms can > > benefit, but I won't require that. > > > > Also, previous [0] proposers had suggested 'rb-gpios', not 'ready-gpio' > > (the hardware docs typically call it 'rb' for ready/busy, FWIW). I don't > > really care, but the name should be going into a doc, so we can choose > > the same one everywhere. > > > > EDIT: looks like the discussion was partly here [1] and it seems we're > > landing on "rb-gpios" in the latest version [2]. Can we stick with that? > > Why should it be "rb-gpios" and not "rb-gpio"? > I don't think there are multiple gpios for r/b# function. Because it's supposed to be a generic binding, and some NAND chips embed several dies, thus exposing several CS and RB pins, hence the rb-gpios name. Also, as described here [1], the convention is to name your property <name>-gpios even if you only need one gpio. Best Regards, Boris [1]http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt#L16 -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
