Hi Rob,
On 15/12/2021 18:03, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 02:46:10PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
>> We have added new compatibles for controller so just checking for
>> "ti,omap2-nand" compatible is not enough. Check for "nand" node name
>> as well.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/memory/omap-gpmc.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/omap-gpmc.c b/drivers/memory/omap-gpmc.c
>> index 624153048182..9f0062a262db 100644
>> --- a/drivers/memory/omap-gpmc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/memory/omap-gpmc.c
>> @@ -2183,7 +2183,8 @@ static int gpmc_probe_generic_child(struct platform_device *pdev,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - if (of_device_is_compatible(child, "ti,omap2-nand")) {
>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(child, "ti,omap2-nand") ||
>> + of_node_name_eq(child, "nand")) {
>
> It would be better to stick with compatible strings. You can match
> against a match table. This should be 'nand-controller' really if this
> binding had a proper split between the controller and nand chips.
OK. I will change this to use compatible strings using a match table.
The 'nand-controller' + 'nand' chip change will be done in a separate series
sometime later.
cheers,
-roger
