[PATCH] ARM: tegra: add "nor-jedec" flash compatible binding

Brian Norris computersforpeace at gmail.com
Mon May 11 15:46:46 PDT 2015

Hi DT maintainers,

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:34:14PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:04:26PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 05/08/2015 02:57 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > >On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Brian Norris <computersforpeace at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:00:12AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > >>>Equally, "nor-jedec" doesn't sound like the right name. It doesn't
> > >>>differentiate between SPI and parallel NOR flash, which presumably
> > >>>need different compatible values, since the programming model is
> > >>>quite different, and the compatible value is supposed to
> > >>>define/imply the SW-visible programming model.
> > >>
> > >>It's definitely for SPI only. There was much discussion about this a
> > >>few months back. Somewhere along the way, it was mentioned that the
> > >>context (SPI slave is a child of SPI master) would make this clear. I'm
> > >>still not sure why we didn't end up with something more descriptive,
> > >>though, like "spi-nor,nor-jedec".
> > >
> > >What about "jedec,spi-nor"?
> > 
> > That seems unique enough to me, or the options below if they're
> > actually applicable.
> That could be OK with me. If I can get the magic blessing from the DT
> folks, then I'll send patches to update everything.

Can I get an 'ack' for this change? We merged a binding for "nor-jedec"
in 4.1-rc1, with review (but no explicit 'ack') from Mark, and a few
DTS's are starting to use it. But we're now seeing objections, with a
request to change this to "jedec,spi-nor". I don't care too much, but I
can understand Stephen's point.

Anyway, I don't want to go through too many more patch cycles without an
explicit ack here on the "jedec,spi-nor" binding (i.e.,
s/nor-jedec/jedec,spi-nor/g). With an ack, then I can make sure the
binding and current users get changed before 4.1 is minted, and prevent
other ARM subarchitectures from pulling in the "wrong" binding for 4.2.


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list