[PATCH v7 1/2] mtd: nand: add tango NFC dt bindings doc

[Boris Brezillon]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:26:48 +0100
Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez at sigmadesigns.com> wrote:

> On 07/11/2016 10:18, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 3:15:50 PM CET Marc Gonzalez wrote:  
> >> Add the tango NAND Flash Controller dt bindings documentation.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez at sigmadesigns.com>
> >> ---
> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/tango-nand.txt | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/tango-nand.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/tango-nand.txt
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..3cbf95d6595a
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/tango-nand.txt
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
> >> +Sigma Designs Tango4 NAND Flash Controller (NFC)
> >> +
> >> +Required properties:
> >> +
> >> +- compatible: "sigma,smp8758-nand"
> >> +- reg: address/size of nfc_reg, nfc_mem, and pbus_reg
> >> +- dmas: reference to the DMA channel used by the controller
> >> +- dma-names: "nfc_sbox"  
> > 
> > Drop the "nfc_" prefix here, it seems redundant.  
> 
> I don't think it's redundant; there are switch boxes for several
> different HW blocks; nfc_sbox is the first one to be exposed.

The dma-names are local to the device, so I think the nfc_ prefix is
indeed not needed.

> 
> >> +- clocks: reference to the system clock
> >> +- #address-cells: <1>
> >> +- #size-cells: <0>
> >> +
> >> +Children nodes represent the available NAND chips.
> >> +See Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand.txt for generic bindings.
> >> +
> >> +Example:
> >> +
> >> +	nand: nand at 2c000 {
> >> +		compatible = "sigma,smp8758-nand";
> >> +		reg = <0x2c000 0x30 0x2d000 0x800 0x20000 0x1000>;  
> > 
> > It would be nicer to write this as
> > 
> > 	reg = <0x2c000 0x30>, <0x2d000 0x800>, <0x20000 0x1000>;
> > 
> > which is identical in binary format.  
> 
> I didn't know that, thanks for pointing it out.
> 
> Unfortunately, Boris already accepted the patch yesterday :-(
> 
> Boris, do you fixup patches in your tree?

I usually try to avoid that, unless one of the patches breaks
bisectibility (which is not the case here). Please send new patches to
fix that.

Thanks,

Boris