[RFC] ARM: BCM5301X: add NAND flash chip description

[Brian Norris]

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 08:32:29PM +0200, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> This adds the NAND flash chip description for a standard chip found
> connected to this SoC. This makes use of generic Broadcom NAND driver
> with the iProc interface.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke at hauke-m.de>
> ---
> 
> This would be the patch when we completely change to device tree only 
> for the nand flash controller.
> 
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-asus-rt-ac56u.dts        |  4 +++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-asus-rt-ac68u.dts        |  4 +++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-buffalo-wzr-1750dhp.dts  |  4 +++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-luxul-xwc-1000.dts       |  8 ++---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-netgear-r6250.dts        |  4 +++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-netgear-r6300-v2.dts     |  4 +++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-smartrg-sr400ac.dts      |  4 +++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm47081-asus-rt-n18u.dts        |  4 +++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm47081-buffalo-wzr-600dhp2.dts |  4 +++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm47081-buffalo-wzr-900dhp.dts  |  4 +++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4709-buffalo-wxr-1900dhp.dts  |  4 +++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4709-netgear-r8000.dts        |  4 +++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm5301x.dtsi                    | 38 +++++++++++++++-------

I'm curious: what tree are you looking at? I don't see most of these
board DTS files. Or are they not intended for upstream, and you're just
using them as examples? (Edit: found them in linux-next. And I see
you're using unreviewed DT snippets, partly by virtue of not using a
'compatible' string for BCMA peripherals.)

>  13 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-asus-rt-ac56u.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-asus-rt-ac56u.dts
> index 71cff8d..f9e187f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-asus-rt-ac56u.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-asus-rt-ac56u.dts
> @@ -23,6 +23,10 @@
>  		reg = <0x00000000 0x08000000>;
>  	};
>  
> +	nand: nand at 18028000 {
> +		status = "ok";
> +	};

Are there any chips that don't have NAND enabled? I would expect the
presence of the NAND controller to be determined at the chip level, not
the board level. (I alluded to this in my comments to Rafal [1].) So
maybe migrate this to bcm4708.dtsi or bcm5301x.dtsi, depending on
whether there are any bcm5301x variants that have NAND disabled. Or
maybe better: just put the 'status = "ok"' part alongside wherever you
put the chip-select node, so you both enable the controller and a
particular chip-select at the same time.

> +
>  	leds {
>  		compatible = "gpio-leds";
>  
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm5301x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm5301x.dtsi
> index 78aec62..cb86748 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm5301x.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm5301x.dtsi
...
> @@ -143,4 +133,30 @@
>  			#gpio-cells = <2>;
>  		};
>  	};
> +
> +	nand: nand at 18028000 {
> +		compatible = "brcm,nand-iproc", "brcm,brcmnand-v6.1", "brcm,brcmnand";
> +		reg = <0x18028000 0x600>, <0x1811a408 0x600>, <0x18028f00 0x20>;
> +		reg-names = "nand", "iproc-idm", "iproc-ext";
> +		interrupts = <GIC_SPI 68 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> +
> +		status = "disabled";
> +
> +		#address-cells = <1>;
> +		#size-cells = <0>;
> +
> +		brcm,nand-has-wp;
> +
> +		nandcs at 0 {
> +			compatible = "brcm,nandcs";
> +			reg = <0>;

So every board that uses a BCM5301x chips must use chip-select 0? What
if the board has NAND wired up on CS1? (I see this all the time on
BCM7xxx boards.)

> +			#address-cells = <1>;
> +			#size-cells = <1>;
> +
> +			nand-ecc-strength = <8>;
> +			nand-ecc-step-size = <512>;

So, every board using the BCM5301x family must use BCH-8? What happens
if there are boards that use a less reliable flash that needs, e.g.,
BCH-16?

IOW, none of the nandcs at 0 node belongs in the top-level chip
description. This all belongs in the board description. If it really is
repeated on tons of boards, then maybe you just need a separate
'nand-cs0-bch8.dtsi' or something like that.

> +
> +			linux,part-probe = "ofpart", "bcm47xxpart";

^ NAK to this line. You still haven't documented any semantics for this
property. And I gave you several comments on your previous patch about
what would need to change before I'd accept this property.

> +		};
> +	};
>  };

Brian

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2015-May/059419.html