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>;
};
};
};
};
Am okay either way!
thanks,
srini
