On 03/11/17 11:57, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> Value of device_width is previously read from documented
> 'gpmc,device-width' property. For now leave 'bank-width'
> as a fallback for older DT blobs.
bank-width is mandatory for NOR devices only.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ladislav Michl <ladis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/memory/omap-gpmc.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/memory/omap-gpmc.c b/drivers/memory/omap-gpmc.c
> index 24b584b74d84..3dc9706e1f15 100644
> --- a/drivers/memory/omap-gpmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/memory/omap-gpmc.c
> @@ -2152,10 +2152,15 @@ static int gpmc_probe_generic_child(struct platform_device *pdev,
> gpmc_configure(GPMC_CONFIG_WP, 0);
> gpmc_s.device_nand = true;
> } else {
> + /*
> + * Some older DT blobs are missing device-width property,
> + * so try to read bank-width and fail if neither works.
> + */
I'd get rid of the above comment and rather say, NOR devices use bank-width
to specify device width.
> ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "bank-width",
> &gpmc_s.device_width);
> - if (ret < 0) {
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%pOF has no 'bank-width' property\n",
> + if (ret < 0 && !gpmc_s.device_width) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> + "%pOF has no 'gpmc,device-width' property\n",
> child);
> goto err;
> }
>
I'm ok with the approach.
We could also update the DT binding documentation to say
"'gpmc,device-width' is mandatory if device is not NOR or NAND type.
For NOR, bank-width is used and for NAND nand-bus-width is used to figure
out the device-width"
And update the patch commit log accordingly.
--
cheers,
-roger
Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki. Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki
--
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
