Re: [PATCH (v4) 2/2] mtd: brcmnand: Add support for the BCM63268

From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
To: Simon Arlott <simon@fire.lp0.eu>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
	Jonas Gorski <jogo@openwrt.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH (v4) 2/2] mtd: brcmnand: Add support for the BCM63268
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 10:22:47 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56535977.9050201@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56523EFF.9050502@simon.arlott.org.uk>

On 22/11/15 14:17, Simon Arlott wrote:
> The BCM63268 has a NAND interrupt register with combined status and enable
> registers. It also has a clock for the NAND controller that needs to be
> enabled.
> 
> Set up the device by enabling the clock, disabling and acking all
> interrupts, then handle the CTRL_READY interrupt.
> 
> Add a "device_remove" function to struct brcmnand_soc so that the clock
> can be disabled when the device is removed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Arlott <simon@fire.lp0.eu>
> ---
> On 22/11/15 21:59, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>> + * "brcm,nand-bcm63268"
>>>>> + - compatible: should contain "brcm,nand-bcm<soc>", "brcm,nand-bcm63268"
>>>
>>> vendor,<soc>-device is preferred.
> 
> The existing two bindings use brcm,nand-<soc>, but I've changed this one.

Could we stick with the existing binding naming convention of using:

brcm,nand-<soc> just so automated tools or other things can match this
one too, and +1 for consistency?

Other than, that, same comment as Jonas, why do we we need the
device_remove callback to be called from the main driver down to this one?
-- 
Florian