On 25/02/2016 at 10:31:39 -0800, Brian Norris wrote : > + devicetree, Boris > > Convenient you left devicetree off, since I expect you'd get a hearty NAK > from them... > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:49:31AM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > > Le 23/02/2016 07:00, Wenyou Yang a écrit : > > > From: Josh Wu <josh...@atmel.com> > > > > > > For SAMA5D3, SAMA5D4 SoC family, PMECC becomes a part of HSMC, they > > > need the HSMC clock enabled to work. > > > The NFC is a sub feature for current nand driver, it can be disabled. > > > But if HSMC clock is controlled by NFC, so disable NFC will also disable > > > the HSMC clock. then, it will make the PMECC fail to work. > > > > > > So the solution is move the HSMC clock out of NFC to nand node. When > > > nand driver probed, it will check whether the chip has HSMC, if yes then > > > it will require a HSMC clock. > > > > > > Add a new "atmel,sama5d3-nand" compatiable string for SAMA5D3's nand. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Josh Wu <josh...@atmel.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Wenyou Yang <wenyou.y...@atmel.com> > > > --- > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > - add "atmel,sama5d3-nand" compatiable string for SAMA5D3's nand. > > > - revert the mail address of Josh's Signed-off to the original. > > > > It seems okay now: > > Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.fe...@atmel.com> > > > > Brian, can we take this patch (if you acknowledged it) with us (through > > the arm-soc tree) to keep the synchronization with the DT part of this work? > > I will also consider squashing the DT part in this one as well as they > > cannot be separated. > > Doesn't that mean you have an illegal breakage of the device tree? > > Also, if you're going to refactor the binding (and possibly even break > it like this), why don't you address the comments Boris made back on the > first version about a year ago? > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/438211/ > > Particularly, I agree that you seem to have the sub-node relationship > all backward. Why is the controller a sub-node of the flash node? And > you have no provision for multiple NAND chips? >
Yes, we plan to break that binding even more, we don't have much choice. I would agree that it would be better to break it only once though. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
