Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dt: spi: s3c64xx: add compatible to controller-data

2015-07-30 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:24:37AM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > So my suggestion is to > 1) search of ofpart subnode in mtd node. If present read address and > reg from it and search partitions as subnodes of the ofpart node. In > this case unknown nodes can cause error. > 2) failing that iss

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dt: spi: s3c64xx: add compatible to controller-data

2015-07-30 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:50:51AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Since you have to patch your DTs anyway, how about putting your > partitions in a subnode and patch the ofpart code to parse this subnode > if it is present (see the following patch). This is the best idea, yes - if we're changing

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dt: spi: s3c64xx: add compatible to controller-data

2015-07-30 Thread Michal Suchanek
On 29 July 2015 at 20:40, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 08:21:34PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> On 29 July 2015 at 19:16, Mark Brown wrote: > >> >> It will not break anything. It will just spam dmesg. > >> > I'm confused - if all this change does is to spam dmesg then what's the

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dt: spi: s3c64xx: add compatible to controller-data

2015-07-30 Thread Boris Brezillon
Hi Michal, On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:19:57 +0200 Michal Suchanek wrote: > The controller-data subnode has no compatible. This can lead to other > drivers getting confused by it. Add a compatible to make devicetreee > unambiguous. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek > --- > Documentation/devicetre

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dt: spi: s3c64xx: add compatible to controller-data

2015-07-29 Thread Mark Brown
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 08:21:34PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > On 29 July 2015 at 19:16, Mark Brown wrote: > >> It will not break anything. It will just spam dmesg. > > I'm confused - if all this change does is to spam dmesg then what's the > > point? > Presumably when your SPI NOR flash fa

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dt: spi: s3c64xx: add compatible to controller-data

2015-07-29 Thread Michal Suchanek
On 29 July 2015 at 19:16, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 06:19:24PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> On 29 July 2015 at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote: > >> > I can't tell from this commit message what the issue you're trying to >> > fix is, sorry. Nodes without compatible strings are enti

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dt: spi: s3c64xx: add compatible to controller-data

2015-07-29 Thread Mark Brown
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 06:19:24PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > On 29 July 2015 at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote: > > I can't tell from this commit message what the issue you're trying to > > fix is, sorry. Nodes without compatible strings are entirely normal and > > don't need compatible strings.

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dt: spi: s3c64xx: add compatible to controller-data

2015-07-29 Thread Brian Norris
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 06:19:24PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > On 29 July 2015 at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:19:57PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > > > Please use subject lines matching the style for the subsytsem so people > > can spot that the patch is in some

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dt: spi: s3c64xx: add compatible to controller-data

2015-07-29 Thread Michal Suchanek
On 29 July 2015 at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:19:57PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > Please use subject lines matching the style for the subsytsem so people > can spot that the patch is in some way relevant. > >> The controller-data subnode has no compatible. This can

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dt: spi: s3c64xx: add compatible to controller-data

2015-07-29 Thread Mark Brown
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:19:57PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: Please use subject lines matching the style for the subsytsem so people can spot that the patch is in some way relevant. > The controller-data subnode has no compatible. This can lead to other > drivers getting confused by it. Add a