Hi Daniel, On Thursday 25 October 2012 05:01 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
Thanks for the review. I'll wait for feedback from Afzal next week and then repost. Wanted to see first if that goes in the right direction at all before bordering the DT people with binding details :)
I was thinking of a generic approach, where there won't be any check for peripheral device type. But going that path would delay achieving DT, may be let's proceed with your approach to start with so that we can have a minimal level of DT support for GPMC and probably we can make it generic later. While adding new properties, it would be better to keep in mind that we need not change these later once gpmc DT is made generic. Regarding the bindings, there are some generic nand properties like ecc already available, may be that be made use here. Also perhaps memory size (and offset if needed) to be mapped for peripherals can go with reg property of child. Regards Afzal -- 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
