[PATCH 39/39] mtd: nand: denali_dt: add compatible strings for UniPhier SoC variants

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> (+CC Dinh)
>
> 2016-12-02 1:05 GMT+09:00 Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org>:
>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 03:06:25AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>> Add two compatible strings for UniPhier SoCs.  The revision register
>>> on both shows revision 5.0, but they are different hardware.
>>>
>>> Features:
>>>  - DMA engine with 64 bit physical address support
>>>  - 1024 byte ECC step size
>>>  - 8 / 16 / 24 bit ECC strength
>>>  - The n_banks format depends on SoC
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/mtd/denali-nand.txt        | 10 +++++--
>>>  drivers/mtd/nand/denali_dt.c                       | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>  2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/denali-nand.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/denali-nand.txt
>>> index 51fe195..cea46e2 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/denali-nand.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/denali-nand.txt
>>> @@ -1,13 +1,19 @@
>>>  * Denali NAND controller
>>>
>>>  Required properties:
>>> -  - compatible : should be "denali,denali-nand-dt"
>>> +  - compatible : should be one of the following:
>>> +      "denali,denali-nand-dt"
>>
>> There are multiple things wrong with this string. denali,denali is
>> redundant is one.
>
> One more redundancy; "-dt" is weird because
> DT compatible should be a name of hardware.
>
>
>> It's also fairly useless as this IP has several
>> versions and numerous configuration options IIRC. This should be
>> deprecated IMO.
>
> Right.  There are several customizable parameters for this IP,
> so a generic compatible string like this is probably useless.
>
> This DT binding was added by commit 30f9f2f for Altera SOCFPGA,
> A funny thing is that they upstreamed DT binding, but they did not upstream
> needed changes for the Denali driver core.
> So, the mainline driver has never worked on SOCFPGA
> (or any of DT-based SoCs).
>
>
>
>>> +      "denali,denali-nand-uniphier-v5a"
>>> +      "denali,denali-nand-uniphier-v5b"
>>
>> Use your vendor prefix, not denali. The 2nd denali can probably be
>> dropped because it is not likely you have another kind of nand
>> controller in the SoC.
>
> Hmm, your statement implies that a vendor prefix
> belongs to an SoC vendor, not an IP vendor.
> (I was not quite sure about this.)

Right. We do have some IP vendor strings, but they are usually
fallbacks. Sometimes, I guess they are useful, but IMO over time they
prove to not be useful.

> It is unlikely to happen to have two different NAND controllers on one SoC.
> But, we used a different NAND controller for our SoC family before
> introducing the Denali IP.
> It also implies that Socionext may use a different NAND IP in the future.
> I'd like to include "denali" somewhere because it is clearly associated with
> the driver name.
> Also, this will give an idea what kind of _basic_ hardware is used,
> even though we know various parameters are customizable.
>
>
>
> (Plan A)
>   "denali,socfpga-nand"           (for Altera SOCFPGA variant)
>   "denali,uniphier-nand-v1"       (for old Socionext UniPhier family variant)
>   "denali,uniphier-nand-v2"       (for new Socionext UniPhier family variant)
>
> (Plan B)
>   "altera,denali-nand"            (for Altera SOCFPGA variant)
>   "socionext,denali-nand-v5a"     (for old Socionext UniPhier family variant)
>   "socionext,denali-nand-v5b"     (for new Socionext UniPhier family variant)

Let the Altera folks worry about their stuff. At least for soft IP in
FPGA, it's a bit of a special case. The old string can remain as bad
as it is. I simply would do "socionext,uniphier-v5b-nand" (and v5a).
The fact that it is denali is part of the documentation.

Rob