Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add local bus device nodes to MPC837xMDS device trees.
This isn't a problem with this device tree, but it's probably time we started establishing some conventional generic names for nand flash and board-control devices. So, to start the ball rolling, I've seen several names for nand flash nodes, I'd suggest we standardise on nand-flash. What's wrong with the already well-established generic name flash? I was concerned that using flash for both NOR flash (which it already is) and NAND flash might be unwise. I am quite open to being convinced otherwise, though. You already said you're convinced, but I'll add another argument anyway... For NAND flash, there will usually be a parent node named nand-controller or similar, while NOR flash will typically be direct-mapped. There is always this tension between making the names as generic as possible, and not losing too much information. In my experience, you can always make leaf nodes have very very generic names, it's only the bus nodes where this can be harder. And then there are exceptions like board-control where there just _is_ no really good name ;-) Segher ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add local bus device nodes to MPC837xMDS device trees.
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 04:39:30AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote: This isn't a problem with this device tree, but it's probably time we started establishing some conventional generic names for nand flash and board-control devices. So, to start the ball rolling, I've seen several names for nand flash nodes, I'd suggest we standardise on nand-flash. What's wrong with the already well-established generic name flash? I was concerned that using flash for both NOR flash (which it already is) and NAND flash might be unwise. I am quite open to being convinced otherwise, though. I've seen several variants for board control devices (cpld, bcsr, fpga, etc.) I suggest we standardise on board-control Fine with me, but it's very vague (hard to avoid though). Yes. -- David Gibson| I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add local bus device nodes to MPC837xMDS device trees.
On Tuesday 11 March 2008, David Gibson wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 04:39:30AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote: This isn't a problem with this device tree, but it's probably time we started establishing some conventional generic names for nand flash and board-control devices. So, to start the ball rolling, I've seen several names for nand flash nodes, I'd suggest we standardise on nand-flash. What's wrong with the already well-established generic name flash? I was concerned that using flash for both NOR flash (which it already is) and NAND flash might be unwise. I am quite open to being convinced otherwise, though. One argument for just using flash is that there are much finer differences than just NAND and NOR, with at least dataflash, OneNAND, SD/MMC being further types of flash that don't fit the categories exactly, though each one for different reasons. For SD/MMC, there are good reasons to use something completely different, for the others, calling them all flash sounds better than fitting them into nand and nor. Arnd ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add local bus device nodes to MPC837xMDS device trees.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:43:49AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Tuesday 11 March 2008, David Gibson wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 04:39:30AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote: This isn't a problem with this device tree, but it's probably time we started establishing some conventional generic names for nand flash and board-control devices. So, to start the ball rolling, I've seen several names for nand flash nodes, I'd suggest we standardise on nand-flash. What's wrong with the already well-established generic name flash? I was concerned that using flash for both NOR flash (which it already is) and NAND flash might be unwise. I am quite open to being convinced otherwise, though. One argument for just using flash is that there are much finer differences than just NAND and NOR, with at least dataflash, OneNAND, SD/MMC being further types of flash that don't fit the categories exactly, though each one for different reasons. For SD/MMC, there are good reasons to use something completely different, for the others, calling them all flash sounds better than fitting them into nand and nor. Ok, I'm convinced. flash it is. -- David Gibson| I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add local bus device nodes to MPC837xMDS device trees.
On Mar 6, 2008, at 6:27 PM, David Gibson wrote:
[snip]
+[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
+reg = 1 0x0 0x8000;
+compatible = fsl,mpc837xmds-bcsr;
+};
+
+[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
This isn't a problem with this device tree, but it's probably time we
started establishing some conventional generic names for nand flash
and board-control devices.
So, to start the ball rolling, I've seen several names for nand flash
nodes, I'd suggest we standardise on nand-flash.
This seems reasonable.
I've seen several variants for board control devices (cpld, bcsr,
fpga, etc.) I suggest we standardise on board-control
I don't see any reason for this. If I have a cpld or fpga why not
just call it that. I don't see what calling it 'board-control' gets
us. There may be non-board control functionality in an fpga than what
do we call it?
- k
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add local bus device nodes to MPC837xMDS device trees.
On Mar 6, 2008, at 4:42 AM, Li Yang wrote: Signed-off-by: Li Yang [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8377_mds.dts | 66 + arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8378_mds.dts | 66 + arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8379_mds.dts | 66 + arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/mpc837x_mds.c |8 +-- 4 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) applied. - k ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add local bus device nodes to MPC837xMDS device trees.
I've seen several variants for board control devices (cpld, bcsr, fpga, etc.) I suggest we standardise on board-control I don't see any reason for this. If I have a cpld or fpga why not just call it that. I don't see what calling it 'board-control' gets us. There may be non-board control functionality in an fpga than what do we call it? Good point. Also, it is important to keep in mind that the name is meant for human consumption only, so while it is important to use some consistent naming (to not confuse the user), there should be quite some leeway here. Segher ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add local bus device nodes to MPC837xMDS device trees.
[snip]
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
+ reg = 1 0x0 0x8000;
+ compatible = fsl,mpc837xmds-bcsr;
+ };
+
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
This isn't a problem with this device tree, but it's probably time we
started establishing some conventional generic names for nand flash
and board-control devices.
So, to start the ball rolling, I've seen several names for nand flash
nodes, I'd suggest we standardise on nand-flash.
I've seen several variants for board control devices (cpld, bcsr,
fpga, etc.) I suggest we standardise on board-control
--
David Gibson| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add local bus device nodes to MPC837xMDS device trees.
This isn't a problem with this device tree, but it's probably time we started establishing some conventional generic names for nand flash and board-control devices. So, to start the ball rolling, I've seen several names for nand flash nodes, I'd suggest we standardise on nand-flash. What's wrong with the already well-established generic name flash? I've seen several variants for board control devices (cpld, bcsr, fpga, etc.) I suggest we standardise on board-control Fine with me, but it's very vague (hard to avoid though). Segher ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
