On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:50:07 +0100Yep, I agree.
Srinivas Kandagatla<srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 20/08/18 19:20, Boris Brezillon wrote:It's because partitions were initially directly defined under the mtd
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:43:34 +0100This looks good to me.
Srinivas Kandagatla<srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Overall am still not able to clear visualize on how MTD bindings withSomething along those lines:
nvmem cells would look in both partition and un-partition usecases?
An example DT would be nice here!!
mtdnode {Just curious...Is there a reason why we can't do it like this?:
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>;
};
};
};
};
}; >
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>;
};
};
};
};
node, so, if you have an old DT you might have something like:
mtdnode {
reg = <0x0123000 0x40000>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
partition@0 {
reg = <0x0 0x20000>;
...
};
...
};
If we use such a DT with this patch applied, the NVMEM framework will
consider MTD partitions as nvmem cells, which is not what we want.