Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:29:00 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3] dt-bindings: nvmem: convert base example to use "nvmem-layout" node | From | Rafał Miłecki <> |
| |
On 10.03.2023 09:59, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Rafał, > > zajec5@gmail.com wrote on Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:51:45 +0100: > >> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >> >> With support for "fixed-layout" binding we can use now "nvmem-layout" >> even for fixed NVMEM cells. Use that in the base example as it should be >> preferred over placing cells directly in the device node. >> >> New and other bindings should follow as old binding will get deprecated >> at some point. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml | 42 +++++++++++-------- >> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml >> index 732162e9d13e..c77be1c20e47 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml >> @@ -67,24 +67,30 @@ examples: >> >> /* ... */ >> >> - /* Data cells */ >> - tsens_calibration: calib@404 { >> - reg = <0x404 0x10>; >> - }; >> - >> - tsens_calibration_bckp: calib_bckp@504 { >> - reg = <0x504 0x11>; >> - bits = <6 128>; >> - }; >> - >> - pvs_version: pvs-version@6 { >> - reg = <0x6 0x2>; >> - bits = <7 2>; >> - }; >> - >> - speed_bin: speed-bin@c{ >> - reg = <0xc 0x1>; >> - bits = <2 3>; >> + nvmem-layout { > > I believe we should not introduce "intermediate state" bindings when > this is not strictly required, in order to avoid confusion with what is > backward and what is transitory. So I would expect this to only apply > after the switch to: > > nvmem-layout@xxx { > reg = <xxx>; > > I don't care who will take care of it, but I think it would be better > to have everything in one series. > > Other than the "order" problematic which I think is important here, I > agree with this series.
I fail to see how / why: 1. Adding new NVMEM layout 2. Supporting mutliple NVMEM layouts would depend on each other.
We already have 2 NVMEM layouts bindings. I'm just adding a new (third) one.
If having NVMEM layouts bindings puts us in any kind of intermediate state then we're already there. I don't think my new NVMEM layout changes this situation.
>> + compatible = "fixed-layout"; >> + #address-cells = <1>; >> + #size-cells = <1>; >> + >> + /* Data cells */ >> + tsens_calibration: calib@404 { >> + reg = <0x404 0x10>; >> + }; >> + >> + tsens_calibration_bckp: calib_bckp@504 { >> + reg = <0x504 0x11>; >> + bits = <6 128>; >> + }; >> + >> + pvs_version: pvs-version@6 { >> + reg = <0x6 0x2>; >> + bits = <7 2>; >> + }; >> + >> + speed_bin: speed-bin@c{ >> + reg = <0xc 0x1>; >> + bits = <2 3>; >> + }; >> }; >> };
| |