Re: [PATCH 1/5] mtd: ofpart: grab device tree node directly from master device node

From: Brian Norris
Date: Tue Oct 27 2015 - 13:54:56 EST

Hi Boris,

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 08:42:00AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:31:06 -0700
> Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > It seems more logical to use a device node directly associated with the
> > MTD master device (i.e., mtd->dev.of_node field) rather than requiring
> > auxiliary partition parser information to be passed in by the driver in
> > a separate struct.
> >
> > This patch supports the mtd->dev.of_node field, deprecates the parser
> > data 'of_node' field, and begins using the new convention for nand_base.
> > Other NAND driver conversions may now follow.
> >
> > Additional side benefit to assigning mtd->dev.of_node rather than using
> > parser data: the driver core will automatically create a device -> node
> > symlink for us.
> I like the idea, but how about pushing the solution even further and
> killing the ->flash_node field which AFAICT is rendered useless by
> your patch?

I suppose we could do that. I do think there's something to be said for
layering, though. Historically, we haven't done a very good job of
layering in MTD, so low-level drivers often have to poke around in the
MTD structures, even if they really should only have to know a few
things about their helper subsystem/library, like NAND or SPI NOR. So
with that in mind, I think the ->flash_node serves some purpose --
drivers can just initialize struct nand_chip/spi_nor and be assured that
the NAND/SPI-NOR subsystems will take care of things.

Now, I don't think there's much reason to suspect that we'd have a more
complex mapping than 1:1 between struct mtd_info and struct nand_chip or
struct spi_nor, so maybe we don't actually need duplicate storage
( and {spi_nor,nand_chip}.flash_node), and the layering
is just have these APIs:


which just call mtd_set_of_node()?

Speaking of layering: why do we have NAND drivers initializing mtd->priv
for us, yet nand_base just assumes that it points to a struct nand_chip?
And why isn't struct mtd_info just embedded in struct nand_chip? Are
there ever cases we want more than one (master) MTD per nand_chip? Or
vice versa?

Thanks for the review,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at