On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:50:07 +0100
Srinivas Kandagatla [off-list ref] wrote:

On 20/08/18 19:20, Boris Brezillon wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:43:34 +0100
Srinivas Kandagatla [off-list ref] wrote:
  

quoted

Overall am still not able to clear visualize on how MTD bindings with
nvmem cells would look in both partition and un-partition usecases?
An example DT would be nice here!!  

Something along those lines:
  

This looks good to me.

quoted

	mtdnode {
		nvmem-cells {
			#address-cells = <1>;
			#size-cells = <1>;

			cell at 0 {
				reg = <0x0 0x14>;
			};
		};

		partitions {
			compatible = "fixed-partitions";
			#address-cells = <1>;
			#size-cells = <1>;

			partition at 0 {
				reg = <0x0 0x20000>;

				nvmem-cells {
					#address-cells = <1>;
					#size-cells = <1>;

					cell at 0 {
						reg = <0x0 0x10>;
					};
				};
			};
		};
	}; >  

Just curious...Is there a reason why we can't do it like this?:
Is this because of issue of #address-cells and #size-cells Or mtd 
bindings always prefer subnodes?

	mtdnode {
		reg = <0x0123000 0x40000>;
		#address-cells = <1>;
		#size-cells = <1>;
		cell at 0 {
			compatible = "nvmem-cell";
			reg = <0x0 0x14>;
		};

		partitions {
			compatible = "fixed-partitions";
			#address-cells = <1>;
			#size-cells = <1>;

			partition at 0 {
				reg = <0x0 0x20000>;
				cell at 0 {
					compatible = "nvmem-cell";
					reg = <0x0 0x10>;
				};
			};
		};
	};

It's because partitions were initially directly defined under the mtd
node, so, if you have an old DT you might have something like:

	mtdnode {
		reg = <0x0123000 0x40000>;
		#address-cells = <1>;
		#size-cells = <1>;

		partition at 0 {
			reg = <0x0 0x20000>;
			...
		};
		...
	};

If we use such a DT with this patch applied, the NVMEM framework will
consider MTD partitions as nvmem cells, which is not what we want.