On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 14:08 -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Anton Vorontsov > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > + w) NAND on UPM-driven Freescale Localbus > > + > > + Required properties: > > + - compatible : "fsl,upm-nand". > > + - reg : should specify localbus chip select and size used for the > > chip. > > + - width : should specify port size in bytes. > > + - fsl,upm-addr-offset : UPM pattern offset for the address latch. > > + - fsl,upm-cmd-offset : UPM pattern offset for the command latch. > > + - fsl,wait-pattern : should be present if NAND chip requires waiting > > + for Ready-Not-Busy pin after each executed pattern. > > + - fsl,wait-write : should be present if NAND chip needs waiting on > > + Ready-Not-Busy pin after each write cycle. > > + - linux,chip-delay : optional, may contain delay value in > > milliseconds > > + (in case when Ready-Not-Busy pin was unspecified). > > + - gpios : may specify optional GPIO connected to the Ready-Not-Busy > > pin. > > I'm not competent to comment on this binding; I haven't spent any time > looking at NAND binding conventions.
That's because there are none, and every time someone proposes one it's like this. Full of weird $board specific stuff that have nothing to do with the actual NAND chip. For example, why is fsl,wait-write defined as an fsl specific property? It seems generic to the NAND chip itself. Also, why in the example is the specific NAND chip part number listed, followed by fsl,upm-nand? It's almost as if people want to mix the NAND chip and NAND controller definitions together. Maybe there is a good reason for it, but it's really confusing. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
