On 04/13/2012 04:22 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/13/2012 03:21 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 04/13/2012 03:58 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/13/2012 12:43 PM, Scott Wood 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>
+++ b/doc/device-tree-bindings/nand/nvidia-nand.txt
+wp-gpio : GPIO of write-protect line, three cells in the format:
+ phandle, parameter, flags
nvidia,nand-wp-gpio
I'm not convinced about this. For example many SDHCI bindings use just
"wp-gpios" not "shdci-wp-gpios". Is there really a need to keep the
property names unique across all bindings, even though a given node only
relies on one binding?
Yeah, there's a lot of bad practice in the existing trees. But the
general recommendation for a while now has been to namespace properties
that aren't defined in standardized, device-indpendent way. That way we
don't get conflicts if we want to use that name for a standard property
in the future, and there's less confusion if multiple people use the
same name in different devices with different semantics.
I thought that's what the "nvidia," vendor prefix was for.
Yes, and it applies to non-standard properties too.
Presumably standardized properties wouldn't have that?
Right.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
