Ben,
We need a better solution to the problem. What does the device tree
on SLOF look like?
- k
On Aug 12, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Benjamin Krill wrote:
Hi Kumar,
slof has a further node inside the flash node which is not a partition
entry. The old code just used all children and since the further node
isn't a partition not all needed properties are there.
cheers
ben
* Kumar Gala | 2009-08-12 09:46:10 [-0500]:
Ben,
The following commit breaks the previous definition of flash
partitions according to
Documentation/powerpc/dts-bindings/mtd-physmap.txt. Using the
'name' field is bad practice. What was going
on w/the SLOF case?
- k
commit 4b08e149c0e02e97ec49c2a31d14a0d3a02f8074
Author: Benjamin Krill <b...@codiert.org>
Date: Fri Jan 23 17:18:05 2009 +0100
[MTD] ofpart: Check name property to determine partition nodes.
SLOF has a further node which could not be evaluated
by the current routine. The current routine returns
because the node hasn't the required reg property. As
fix this patch adds a check to determine the partition
child nodes. If the node is not a partition the number
of total partitions will be decreased and loop continues
with the next nodes.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Krill <b...@codiert.org>
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <david.woodho...@intel.com>
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
