Hi Miquel,

On 07/09/2021 19:35, Miquel Raynal wrote:

Hi Grygorii,

quoted

quoted

quoted

+
+  nand-bus-width:
+    description:
+      Bus width to the NAND chip
+    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
+    enum: [8, 16]
+    default: 8  

This is part of nand-controller.yaml binding and should not be there.
  

quoted

+
+allOf:
+  - $ref: "../memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml"  

Maybe you need to reference the nand controller bindings as well
  

This will not work out of the box :( as nand-controller.yaml defines both
  nand controller and nand memory. It potentially might work if it will be possible to split
nand memory definition (or nand memory properties) out of and-controller.yaml, similarly to
ti,gpmc-child.yaml from this series.

What you think would be the issue?

The issue is that dt_binding checks will fail if I reference nand-controller.yaml
as we currently represent the controller as follows

memory-controller { /* GPMC controller */
	memory-controller-props;
	nand-chip {
		/* @chip select 0 */
		nand-controller-props;
		memory-controller-timing-props;
		chip-props;
	}
	nand-chip {
		/* @chip select 1 */
		nand-controller-props;
		memory-controller-timing-props;
		chip-props;
	}
	nor-chip {
		/* @chip select 2 */
		memory-controller-timing-props;
		chip-props;
	}
}

The NAND controller IO registers are at different addresses for different
chip select regions. Also, this is one way we can specify GPMC settings/timings
for different chip selects.

I am not opposed to split nand-controller.yaml into
nand-controller.yaml and nand-chip.yaml if it simplifies the
description of controllers but I don't get why it would be needed. In
particular since we expect all drivers to support the

nand-controller {
	controller-props;
	nand-chip {
		chip-props;
	}
}

Changing to this format will cause a lot of churn in DT files, which I'm not sure
if it gives enough benefit. 
TI platforms will never have 2 NAND chips in the same chip select region.

organization which has been enforced since at least 2018. Having a
controller vs. chip representation is fundamentally right. But here I
see how "legacy" are these bindings with so much unneeded specific "ti,"
properties... On one side it would be good to verify that the driver
supports this representation (which I believe is true) and on the other
side maybe it's time to advertise "better" bindings as well.

Yes, I'm OK to mark ti specific properties deprecated and use standard NAND chip
bindings.

cheers,
-roger