[PATCH v8 5/5] ARM: OMAP: gpmc: add DT bindings for GPMC timings and NAND

[Ezequiel Garcia]

Tony,

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com> wrote:
> * Daniel Mack <zonque at gmail.com> [130114 15:30]:
>> On Jan 15, 2013 2:06 AM, "Tony Lindgren" <tony at atomide.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > * Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia at gmail.com> [121223 13:49]:
>> > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Daniel Mack <zonque at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > +
>> > > > +Example for an AM33xx board:
>> > > > +
>> > > > +       gpmc: gpmc at 50000000 {
>> > > > +               compatible = "ti,am3352-gpmc";
>> > > > +               ti,hwmods = "gpmc";
>> > > > +               reg = <0x50000000 0x1000000>;
>> > > > +               interrupts = <100>;
>> > > > +               gpmc,num-cs = <8>;
>> > > > +               gpmc,num-waitpins = <2>;
>> > > > +               #address-cells = <2>;
>> > > > +               #size-cells = <1>;
>> > > > +               ranges = <0 0 0x08000000 0x2000>;       /* CS0: NAND
>> */
>> > > > +
>> > > > +               nand at 0,0 {
>> > > > +                       reg = <0 0 0>; /* CS0, offset 0 */
>> > >
>> > > I'm a bit confused by this: what are the other two values in "reg"?
>> > > I see you've only added a binding for CS.
>> > >
>> > > I've extended a bit on your work and added a binding to enable OneNAND
>> > > device on my IGEP board.
>> > >
>> > > I might send some patches in case anyone wants to give it a try.
>> >
>> > Daniel, should this be updated to just pass the CS?
>>
>> No, as Rob pointed out earlier in a thread about this topic, the 'ranges'
>> feature will help doing the math for the offset calculation eventually, so
>> we need to pass all three values.
>
> OK thanks. Applying this set into omap-for-v3.9/gpmc.
>
> Also sounds like Ezequiel needs to update his follow up patches accordingly.
>

The patches for OneNAND that were posted on the ML apply cleanly
on top omap-for-v3.9/gpmc.

What do you want me to update?

-- 
    Ezequiel