Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752992AbbKXIMn (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2015 03:12:43 -0500 Received: from proxima.lp0.eu ([81.2.80.65]:34393 "EHLO proxima.lp0.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751833AbbKXIMm (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2015 03:12:42 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH (v4) 2/2] mtd: brcmnand: Add support for the BCM63268 To: Florian Fainelli , Rob Herring References: <56506D55.3000907@simon.arlott.org.uk> <20151122215945.GA5930@rob-hp-laptop> <56523E85.905@simon.arlott.org.uk> <56523EFF.9050502@simon.arlott.org.uk> <56535977.9050201@gmail.com> Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Brian Norris , Linux Kernel Mailing List , David Woodhouse , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Jonas Gorski From: Simon Arlott Message-ID: <56541BD3.4070202@simon.arlott.org.uk> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:12:03 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56535977.9050201@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1717 Lines: 43 On 23/11/15 18:22, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 22/11/15 14:17, Simon Arlott wrote: >> The BCM63268 has a NAND interrupt register with combined status and enable >> registers. It also has a clock for the NAND controller that needs to be >> enabled. >> >> Set up the device by enabling the clock, disabling and acking all >> interrupts, then handle the CTRL_READY interrupt. >> >> Add a "device_remove" function to struct brcmnand_soc so that the clock >> can be disabled when the device is removed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Arlott >> --- >> On 22/11/15 21:59, Rob Herring wrote: >>>>>> + * "brcm,nand-bcm63268" >>>>>> + - compatible: should contain "brcm,nand-bcm", "brcm,nand-bcm63268" >>>> >>>> vendor,-device is preferred. >> >> The existing two bindings use brcm,nand-, but I've changed this one. > > Could we stick with the existing binding naming convention of using: > > brcm,nand- just so automated tools or other things can match this > one too, and +1 for consistency? I could submit another patch renaming the existing bindings to brcm,-nand, and add that to the drivers? Then they'd be consistent. > Other than, that, same comment as Jonas, why do we we need the > device_remove callback to be called from the main driver down to this one? I'll add a "struct brcmnand_soc *brcmnand_get_socdata(struct device *)" instead so that I can access the soc data before calling brcmnand_remove. -- Simon Arlott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/