Hi Scott,
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote:
> On 04/13/2012 02:01 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/13/2012 01:29 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>> Add a NAND controller along with a bindings file for review.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> - Update NAND binding to add "nvidia," prefix
>>>>
>>>> arch/arm/dts/tegra20.dtsi | 6 ++
>>>> doc/device-tree-bindings/nand/nvidia-nand.txt | 68
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>> create mode 100644 doc/device-tree-bindings/nand/nvidia-nand.txt
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/tegra20.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/tegra20.dtsi
>>>> index bc64f42..7be0462 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/dts/tegra20.dtsi
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/dts/tegra20.dtsi
>>>> @@ -200,4 +200,10 @@
>>>> reg = <0x7000f400 0x200>;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> + nand: nand-controller@0x70008000 {
>>>
>>> s/nand-controller@/flash@/ (or "nand@" if you really want -- there's
>>> enough of that in use already)
>>
>> Changed to flash@.
>>
>> I am a little concerned that we are co-mingling the controller with
>> the device, but I think this is ok.
>
> No, you're right -- it should be something like nand-controller@. For
> some reason I didn't notice the node split when I wrote that.
OK, changed it back.
>
>>>> + #address-cells = <0>;
>>>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>>>> + compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-nand";
>>>> + reg = <0x70008000 0x100>;
>>>> + };
>>>> };
>>>> diff --git a/doc/device-tree-bindings/nand/nvidia-nand.txt
>>>> b/doc/device-tree-bindings/nand/nvidia-nand.txt
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..b19ce8e
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/doc/device-tree-bindings/nand/nvidia-nand.txt
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
>>>> +NAND Flash
>>>> +----------
>>>> +
>>>> +(there isn't yet a generic binding in Linux, so this describes what is in
>>>> +U-Boot)
>>>
>>> Ideally the binding should not be Linux-specific or U-Boot specific --
>>> it's just the binding that describes this hardware.
>>
>> Agreed, but trying to agree a binding in Linux in the absence of a
>> driver may be beyond my powers.
>
> It shouldn't be, and if it is then we should move on to a better binding
> repository (Grant set up devicetree.org for this a while back, but I'm
> not sure what the process is for considering a binding there to be final).
Well we probably agree there should be a new repo for this. This is
going to the right mailing list (Devicetree Discuss), so people can
chime in as needed.
>
> -Scott
>
Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
