Sergei,

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Sergei Shtylyov
[off-list ref] wrote:

Hello.

On 10/14/2015 4:07 AM, Daniel Kurtz wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

Add Mediatek nor flash node

Signed-off-by: Bayi Cheng <redacted>
---
   arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi | 15 +++++++++++++++
   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi

b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi
index d18ee42..385c2e4 100644

--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi

@@ -365,6 +365,21 @@
                         status = "disabled";
                 };

+               nor_flash: spi at 1100d000 {

    I don't think this is a good label name for a SPI controller.

You think "spi" is not a good name for SPI controller?
Or you mean the label "nor_flash"?

   I think I said clearly: "label". :-)

quoted

Would you prefer:

   spi_nor_flash: spi at 1100d000

   I'd prefer the "_nor_flash" part to be dropped, to be used for the real
flash device (if needed) which is a sub-node of this node.

The dedicated nor_flash spi bus cannot just be labeled 'spi', as that
would conflict with the general purpose 'spi' bus.  Instead, it is
given a unique label that can be used as a phandle elsewhere (e.g., in
a board file, to enable the bus).  The name "spi_nor_flash" makes it
clear that this spi bus is only for use for accessing the nor_flash.

Bayi: Actually, this reminds me.  I'd prefer if the bus node was
disabled by default, and only enabled by boards as required.  So, the
node should include:
   status = "disabled";

-Dan