On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Olof Johansson wrote at Thursday, December 22, 2011 5:18 PM: >> Device tree bindings for the EMC tables on tegra. > ... >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra/emc.txt > ... >> +Embedded Memory Controller ram-code table > ... >> +- name : Should be emc-tables >> +- nvidia,ram-code : the binary representation of the ram-code board strappings >> + for which this node (and children) are valid. > ... >> +Embedded Memory Controller configuration table > ... >> +- name : Should be emc-table >> +- compatible : Should contain "nvidia,tegra20-emc-table". >> +- reg : either an opaque enumerator to tell different tables apart, or > ... > > One more thought: > > For consistency, should the "emc-tables" node also require a compatible > value? I suppose the existence of an "nvidia,ram-code" property is quite > likely to be indication enough that the node is compatible, but I wonder > if we shouldn't require and check an explicit compatible value at this > level too? I can add it, it's trivial to add another check in tegra_emc_ramcode_devnode, but I don't think there's much need to bother. As long as nothing else is added that uses nvidia,ram-code as a property we'll be OK, and we can control that. -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
