> > Grant wondered if we need a bankwidth. IMHO it is needed for now, but I > > don't > > know if this is a common agreement. > > I'm not happy about the use case though. It probably shouldn't appear > in this binding, or if it does it should be tagged as an optional > property. It is only in the 5200 localplus case that bank-width is > needed to figure out how to apply the workaround.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. I am not talking about Albrecht's case. What I replied to your concern is that bankwidth is used(!) in the underlying map-ram-driver in mapram_erase() at the moment. Whether this is really needed could be discussed perhaps, but is beyond the scope of this patch series IMHO. I'd think this can be addressed in a later series, if needed, although this could mean that the binding will change (bank-width becoming optional). Regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
