Re: [PATCH 1/3] doc: bindings: Add bindings documentation for mtd nvmem

[Boris Brezillon]

On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:17:05 +0100
Alban <albeu@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 21:22:20 +0100
> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu,  2 Mar 2017 20:50:21 +0100
> > Alban <albeu@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> > > Add the binding to expose MTD partitions as nvmem providers.    
> > 
> > Looks good. Maybe you should take the case you describe in your
> > cover-letter into account and add an extra layer: add an nvmem sub-node
> > containing the nvmem cells, so that you can expose nvmem cells directly
> > under master MTD devices (and not only partitions).   
> 
> I think that would be the better solution. This can be done
> independently, once we agree on a binding we just have to fix
> of_nvmem_cell_get(). My suggestion would be to have the new binding
> looking like this:
> 
> nvmem-device@10 {
> 	...
> 	nvmem-provider;
> 	nvmem-cells {
> 		compatible = "nvmem-cells";
> 		#address-cells = <1>;
> 		#size-cells = <1>;
> 
> 		nvmem-cell@100 {
> 			label = "mac-address";
> 			reg = <0x100 0x200>;
> 		}
> 
> 		...
> 	}
> }
> 
> I would also suggest making the "nvmem-provider" property mandatory
> to indicate that the device provides this capability. Up to now all
> nvmem providers only support this API but I think there might be more
> multi function devices in the future.

If you enforce the name of the child node (here nvmem-cells), you don't
need this extra nvmem-provider property. Am I missing something?