On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 23:27:48 +0200
Alban [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 20:20:38 +0200
Boris Brezillon [off-list ref] 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:  

We must also have a compatible string on the nvmem-cells node to make
sure we don't clash with the old style MTD partitions,

That's not possible, because we don't have a reg prop in the
nvmem-cells node.

or some other
device specific binding.

This one might happen.

Was Rob okay with this compatible? If he was, I guess we can go for
this binding. Srinivas, any objection?

quoted

	mtdnode {
		nvmem-cells {  

                        compatible = "nvmem-cells";

quoted

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

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

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

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

				nvmem-cells {  

                                        compatible = "nvmem-cells";

quoted

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

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

Alban