Hi Scott,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com wrote:
On 07/30/2012 01:53 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/tegra20.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/tegra20.dtsi index f95be58..d936b1e 100644 --- a/arch/arm/dts/tegra20.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/dts/tegra20.dtsi @@ -204,4 +204,11 @@ compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-kbc"; reg = <0x7000e200 0x0078>; };
nand: nand-controller@70008000 {#address-cells = <1>;#size-cells = <0>;compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-nand";reg = <0x70008000 0x100>;};}; diff --git a/doc/device-tree-bindings/nand/nvidia,tegra20-nand.txt b/doc/device-tree-bindings/nand/nvidia,tegra20-nand.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..86ae408 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/device-tree-bindings/nand/nvidia,tegra20-nand.txt @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +NAND Flash +----------
+(there isn't yet a generic binding in Linux, so this describes what is in +U-Boot. There should not be Linux-specific or U-Boot specific binding, just +a binding that describes this hardware. But agreeing a binding in Linux in +the absence of a driver may be beyond my powers.)
Please at least attempt to get a binding accepted in Linux, or perhaps in a neutral repository such as devicetree.org (but point out on devicetree-discuss that you've posted it there). The device tree is supposed to describe the hardware, not what Linux currently uses.
+Example +-------
+nand-controller@0x70008000 {
compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-nand";#address-cells = <1>;#size-cells = <0>;nvidia,wp-gpios = <&gpio 59 0>; /* PH3 */nvidia,nand-width = <8>;nvidia,timing = <26 100 20 80 20 10 12 10 70>;nand@0 {reg = <0>;compatible = "hynix,hy27uf4g2b", "nand-flash";};+};
Where is "reg" in the parent node? You're not supposed to have a unit address without reg. Also, most bus bindings don't put 0x in the unit address).
I see that it's OK in the actual .dtsi -- it's just the example that needs fixing.
OK I will fix these and send a new patch.
Regards, Simon
-Scott