On 10/25/2012 03:00 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: > Hi Jon, > > many thanks for your time to look at this. > > On 25.10.2012 03:28, Jon Hunter wrote: >> On 10/22/2012 02:55 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/gpmc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/gpmc.txt >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000..ef1c6e1 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/gpmc.txt >>> @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ >>> +Device tree bindings for OMAP general purpose memory controllers (GPMC) >>> + >>> +The actual devices are instantiated from the child nodes of a GPMC node. >>> + >>> +Required properties: >>> + >>> + - compatible: Should be set to "ti,gpmc" >> >> Is this the only required property? I think that "reg" and "ti,hwmods" >> are probably also required. > > Well yes, but at least "reg" is commonly omitted as it's part of a more > "generic" set of properties. But ok, I can add these. > >> Also given that we are describing the hardware, I am wondering if the >> number of chip-selects and wait signals should be defined here too. I >> recall that different devices had different number of wait pins available. > > Hmm, that number is currently hard-coded in GPMC_CS_NUM. It would take > some effort to make that dynamic but I agree that this would be a good > thing to have. Afzal? I believe that today all OMAP/AM devices have 8 chip-selects so probably not a big deal. However, given we are moving to DT it would be nice to move away from having such #defines for hardware related items. Cheers Jon -- 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
