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

[Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>]

On 24/11/15 00:12, Simon Arlott wrote:
> On 23/11/15 18:22, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> I could submit another patch renaming the existing bindings to
> brcm,<soc>-nand, and add that to the drivers? Then they'd be consistent.

No, let's not create unnecessary churn because of a minor mistake. So,
yes we *should* have used brcm,<soc>-nand in the first place, but now
that there are DTSes out there using "brcm,nand-<soc>" there is not
really any point in doing this, so please update your patches so they
match the existing convention.

> 
>> 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?
> 
> I'll add a "struct brcmnand_soc *brcmnand_get_socdata(struct device *)"
> instead so that I can access the soc data before calling brcmnand_remove.
> 


-- 
Florian