| Message ID | 20221028235933.934850-6-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | eb6fa33657da9526a9e5f43088d80b99a5c0315e |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Improve MTD bindings | expand |
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 01:59:26AM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote: > The chip node name in this driver is expected to be different and should > be prefixed with onenand instead of the regular "flash" string, so > mention it. > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > index a953f7397c40..8a79ad300216 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ description: > as child nodes of the GPMC controller. > > properties: > + $nodename: > + pattern: "^onenand@[0-9],[0,9]$" I don't think it is worth enforcing node names that we haven't defined in the spec. Wouldn't 'nand-controller' be appropriate? > + > compatible: > const: ti,omap2-onenand > > -- > 2.34.1 > >
Hi Rob, robh@kernel.org wrote on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 15:54:42 -0500: > On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 01:59:26AM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > The chip node name in this driver is expected to be different and should > > be prefixed with onenand instead of the regular "flash" string, so > > mention it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > > index a953f7397c40..8a79ad300216 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > > @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ description: > > as child nodes of the GPMC controller. > > > > properties: > > + $nodename: > > + pattern: "^onenand@[0-9],[0,9]$" > > I don't think it is worth enforcing node names that we > haven't defined in the spec. Wouldn't 'nand-controller' be appropriate? Actually I've added this pattern here because there are several users in the arm/boot/dts/ directory which use it, and the example below in this file also uses onenand@xxx. I can either fix the example to use nand-controller or add this pattern (I guess "deprecated: true" would not mean anything?). What do you prefer? If we decide to switch to the nand-controller@ name, shall I change the DTS as well? Thanks, Miquèl
On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 05:50:07PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Rob, > > robh@kernel.org wrote on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 15:54:42 -0500: > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 01:59:26AM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > > The chip node name in this driver is expected to be different and should > > > be prefixed with onenand instead of the regular "flash" string, so > > > mention it. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> > > > --- > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml | 3 +++ > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > > > index a953f7397c40..8a79ad300216 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml > > > @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ description: > > > as child nodes of the GPMC controller. > > > > > > properties: > > > + $nodename: > > > + pattern: "^onenand@[0-9],[0,9]$" > > > > I don't think it is worth enforcing node names that we > > haven't defined in the spec. Wouldn't 'nand-controller' be appropriate? > > Actually I've added this pattern here because there are several users in > the arm/boot/dts/ directory which use it, and the example below in this > file also uses onenand@xxx. > > I can either fix the example to use nand-controller or add this pattern > (I guess "deprecated: true" would not mean anything?). What do you > prefer? > > If we decide to switch to the nand-controller@ name, shall I change the > DTS as well? I guess I'd just leave it as you have it. Rob
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml index a953f7397c40..8a79ad300216 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ description: as child nodes of the GPMC controller. properties: + $nodename: + pattern: "^onenand@[0-9],[0,9]$" + compatible: const: ti,omap2-onenand
The chip node name in this driver is expected to be different and should be prefixed with onenand instead of the regular "flash" string, so mention it. Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)