On Wednesday 23 April 2008 13:12, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:

David Woodhouse wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Ok. I'll submit a new patch as soon as we agree on a compatible name.

quoted

quoted

quoted

Did we?

quoted

quoted

   IIRC, The latest agreement was that we don't need the "compatible" and 
will match on node name.

quoted

Ok. Is there a current patch I should be merging?

    Looks like it was decided to revert to the platform device method, not 
sure why -- so, no changes. Laurent?

Last thing I heard was that the device tree should not encode a device's 
expected usage, so memory nodes should not have any compatible property that 
would automatically associated them to an MTD driver. I've been adviced to 
add platform-specific code to instantiate a platform device manually 
(possibly checking if the required memory node is present in the device 
tree). This arguably makes sense, but adds more platform-specific code.

So, no need for a patch so far.

-- 
Laurent Pinchart
CSE Semaphore Belgium

Chaussee de Bruxelles, 732A
B-1410 Waterloo
Belgium

T +32 (2) 387 42 59
F +32 (2) 387 42 75