Re: [PATCH (v4) 2/2] mtd: brcmnand: Add support for the BCM63268

[Florian Fainelli]

On 22/11/15 14:17, Simon Arlott wrote:
> The BCM63268 has a NAND interrupt register with combined status and enable
> registers. It also has a clock for the NAND controller that needs to be
> enabled.
> 
> Set up the device by enabling the clock, disabling and acking all
> interrupts, then handle the CTRL_READY interrupt.
> 
> Add a "device_remove" function to struct brcmnand_soc so that the clock
> can be disabled when the device is removed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Arlott <simon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> On 22/11/15 21:59, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>> + * "brcm,nand-bcm63268"
>>>>> + - compatible: should contain "brcm,nand-bcm<soc>", "brcm,nand-bcm63268"
>>>
>>> vendor,<soc>-device is preferred.
> 
> The existing two bindings use brcm,nand-<soc>, but I've changed this one.

Could we stick with the existing binding naming convention of using:

brcm,nand-<soc> just so automated tools or other things can match this
one too, and +1 for consistency?

Other than, that, same comment as Jonas, why do we we need the
device_remove callback to be called from the main driver down to this one?
-- 
Florian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/