Hi Grygorii,
> >
> >> +
> >> + nand-bus-width:
> >> + description:
> >> + Bus width to the NAND chip
> >> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> >> + enum: [8, 16]
> >> + default: 8
> >
> > This is part of nand-controller.yaml binding and should not be there.
> >
> >> +
> >> +allOf:
> >> + - $ref: "../memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml"
> >
> > Maybe you need to reference the nand controller bindings as well
> >
>
> This will not work out of the box :( as nand-controller.yaml defines both
> nand controller and nand memory. It potentially might work if it will be possible to split
> nand memory definition (or nand memory properties) out of and-controller.yaml, similarly to
> ti,gpmc-child.yaml from this series.
What you think would be the issue?
I am not opposed to split nand-controller.yaml into
nand-controller.yaml and nand-chip.yaml if it simplifies the
description of controllers but I don't get why it would be needed. In
particular since we expect all drivers to support the
nand-controller {
controller-props;
nand-chip {
chip-props;
}
}
organization which has been enforced since at least 2018. Having a
controller vs. chip representation is fundamentally right. But here I
see how "legacy" are these bindings with so much unneeded specific "ti,"
properties... On one side it would be good to verify that the driver
supports this representation (which I believe is true) and on the other
side maybe it's time to advertise "better" bindings as well.
Thanks,
Miquèl
