So, all in all, I think we should just give these "auxiliary memory"
devices a name of "ram" c.q. "rom", and some "reg", and that should
be all that is needed: the main memory probe stuff won't consider
these nodes, and the (platform) device probe code can do whatever it
wants (create mtd devices, I guess).
Ok, I get your point. I'll prepare a new documentation patch; changes
to
physmap_of.c will go away.
Thanks.
If I understand you correctly, there should be no "compatible"
property on the
ram and rom devices.
They aren't normally needed here, I think.
Should the "non-volatile", "slow" and "static ram"
properties still be expressed in the device tree ?
If those are useful. I'll need to see a proposed binding to form
an opinion on this, it's too vague now, sorry.
Segher
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
