lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH (v4) 2/2] mtd: brcmnand: Add support for the BCM63268
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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-23 19:41    [W:0.178 / U:0.368 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site