Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Regarding non-volatility nothing prevents a user from using a
volatile RAM as an MTD device, but there's little point in doing so.
Would it be acceptable for the "linear-nvram" specification
not to include > volatile RAM ? ROM chips would be excluded too. Is
that an issue ?
We actually use a volatile ram (SRAM) as an MTD device. We use it to
store info from bootloader and system specific values between resets.
So we're left with two main options.
- Reusing the nvram device type from the Device Support Extensions. Volatile
devices wouldn't be supported, and we'd need a separate device specification
for linear-mapped volatile RAMs. I'm not very happy with that.
- Using another device node with a compatible value set to "linear-ram" (or
something similar). This would support both volatile and non-volatile
devices, and a property could be added to specify if the device is volatile
or not.
I'd go for the second option, and I'd specify a "linear-rom" compatible value
as well while we're at it.
Both volatile and non-volatile RAMs can be handled by the physmap_of MTD
driver. They both use the same map probe type ("map_ram"). Volatility isn't
handled there.
ROMs should be handled by the same driver and should use the "mtd_rom" map
probe type.
OK, let's go with it.
As all those devices use the physmap_of MTD driver, what about
using "physmap-ram" and "physmap-rom" as compatibility names ?
Heh, we've gone thru "physmap" before -- it was labelled Linux-specific
name (well, I'd agree with that).
Best regards,
WBR, Sergei
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
