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

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@0 {
			compatible = "nvmem-cell";
			reg = <0x0 0x14>;
		};

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

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

That would work, the MTD partitions parser ignore child nodes with a
compatible string when looking for "old style" partitions, see [1].
However we still have the a potential address space clash between the
nvmem cells and the main device binding.

Alban

[1]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c#L28