Laurent Pinchart wrote:
We're talking about a very specific type of RAM, used for permanent storage
with a battery backup. The RAM is really meant to be used as an MTD device
and as such I think it makes sense to describe it as an mtd-compatible device
on the local bus.
What about the following definition for the RAM node ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED],0000 {
Note that there's a OF "device_type" of "nvram", so your (generic) device
name seems to add some mess. (IIRC, that OF device type didn't actually
represent a "real" device, and only served to provide access to NVRAM for OF).
Ok.
Well, I might have gone too far here -- it should be a real device
(spec'ed in Device Support Extensions recommended practice). It's just that
the spec didn't mention "reg" property, only "#bytes" (the device capacity).
So, it may be worth considering...
compatible = "mtd,ram";
The part before comma should be a company name or a stock ticker. What did
you mean here?
I didn't know that. Let's say I meant "mtd-ram" :-)
reg = <2 0x0000 0x00100000>;
bank-width = <2>;
};
Or should the node have a device-type property of either 'ram' or 'rom' with
the compatible property just referencing MTD ?
The "device_type" properties are not required and their further creation
has been discouraged on liunxppc-dev.
What about
[EMAIL PROTECTED],0000 {
compatible = "mtd-ram";
reg = <2 0x0000 0x00100000>;
bank-width = <2>;
};
ROMs could use "mtd-rom" for their compatible property.
Heh, there was a whole company against mentioning "mtd" when we started
working on this (of course, the first idea was to call the flash device type
"mtd"). I don't think "mtd" looks good here -- I'd suggest "flash-ram" (if
this is just a linearly mapped NVRAM).
Best regards,
WBR, Sergei
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
