On 8/10/22 15:40, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 03:31:59PM +0200, Patrice CHOTARD wrote: >> On 8/10/22 15:23, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 03:15:08PM +0200, Patrice CHOTARD wrote: > >>> Yes. Though I'm not clear if the bindings actually want to enforce it >>> there, it's a device level property not a controller level one so it >>> might not be something where controller support gets validated. > >> Ah yes, i see, parallel-memories should not be used in our qspi controller node. >> So i can't reuse parallel-memories for my purpose. > >> So i need to add a new proprietary property at controller level as done in the v1 ? > > Can't the controller figure this out by looking at the properties of the > connected devices? You'd need to just return an error if we ever > triggered transfer_one_message() on a device that can't support the > operation. It should be a solution. I just noticed another point, property parallel-memories is an array of uint64 which represent device's size. In case a FPGA is connected to the qspi 8 line bus, parallel-memories property will be set with what ? simply random value to make dtbs_check happy ? IMHO, adding a new proprietary property would be cleaner.