Re: [PATCH v2 06/29] mtd: Add support for reading MTD devices via the nvmem API

[Srinivas Kandagatla]

On 20/08/18 19:20, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:43:34 +0100
> Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Overall am still not able to clear visualize on how MTD bindings with
> > nvmem cells would look in both partition and un-partition usecases?
> > An example DT would be nice here!!
>
> Something along those lines:
This looks good to me.
> 	mtdnode {
> 		nvmem-cells {
> 			#address-cells = <1>;
> 			#size-cells = <1>;
>
> 			cell@0 {
> 				reg = <0x0 0x14>;
> 			};
> 		};
>
> 		partitions {
> 			compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> 			#address-cells = <1>;
> 			#size-cells = <1>;
>
> 			partition@0 {
> 				reg = <0x0 0x20000>;
>
> 				nvmem-cells {
> 					#address-cells = <1>;
> 					#size-cells = <1>;
>
> 					cell@0 {
> 						reg = <0x0 0x10>;
> 					};
> 				};
> 			};
> 		};
> 	}; >

Just curious...Is there a reason why we can't do it like this?:
Is this because of issue of #address-cells and #size-cells Or mtd 
bindings always prefer subnodes?

	mtdnode {
		reg = <0x0123000 0x40000>;
		#address-cells = <1>;
		#size-cells = <1>;
		cell@0 {
			compatible = "nvmem-cell";
			reg = <0x0 0x14>;
		};

		partitions {
			compatible = "fixed-partitions";
			#address-cells = <1>;
			#size-cells = <1>;

			partition@0 {
				reg = <0x0 0x20000>;
				cell@0 {
					compatible = "nvmem-cell";
					reg = <0x0 0x10>;
				};
			};
		};
	};

Am okay either way!

thanks,
srini