On Tuesday 25 March 2008 18:02, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > Heh, there was a whole company against mentioning "mtd" when we started > > > working on this (of course, the first idea was to call the flash device > > > type "mtd"). I don't think "mtd" looks good here -- I'd suggest > > > "flash-ram" (if this is just a linearly mapped NVRAM). > > > I'm fine with "flash-ram" (even thought it looks a bit weird). I'll > > prepare a patch. > > Yeah. I forgeot that "flash" means EEPROM. Actually, the main facts about > the NVRAM that I'd want to be stated in the "compatible" property is that > it's non-volatile and directly/lineraly mapped... Just "nvram" doesn't seem > enopugh, maybe "linear-nvram" is.
Direct mapping is a hard requirement for the nvram if we want to use it with the MTD subsystem. Regarding non-volatility nothing prevents a user from using a volatile RAM as an MTD device, but there's little point in doing so. Would it be acceptable for the "linear-nvram" specification not to include volatile RAM ? ROM chips would be excluded too. Is that an issue ? > And we can specify "device_type" of "nvram" indeed (and #size). I suppose you meant #bytes. What about sub-partitions support ? Nothing prevents RAM-based MTD devices from being partioned. Would it be acceptable to reference the CFI/JEDEC flash section in Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt in the description of the nvram node ? Best regards, -- Laurent Pinchart CSE Semaphore Belgium Chaussée de Bruxelles, 732A B-1410 Waterloo Belgium T +32 (2) 387 42 59 F +32 (2) 387 42 75
pgpFY5Ra1Z7Qi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
