Re: [PATCH] ndfc driver
From: Sean MacLennan <hidden>
Date: 2008-12-10 04:01:35
Also in:
linux-devicetree
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2008-12-17 · Re: [PATCH] ndfc driver · Josh Boyer <hidden>
- 2008-12-17 · Re: [PATCH] ndfc driver · Sean MacLennan <hidden>
- 2008-11-03 · Re: [PATCH] ndfc driver · Felix Radensky <hidden>
- 2008-10-30 · [PATCH] ndfc driver · Sean MacLennan <hidden>
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:57:12 -1000 "Mitch Bradley" [off-list ref] wrote:
One address/size cell isn't enough for the next generation of NAND FLASH chips.
I am no dts expert, but I thought I could put:
nand {
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
in my dts and you could put:
nand {
#address-cells = <2>;
#size-cells = <2>;
and, assuming we specified the reg entry right, everything would just
work. Is that assumption wrong?
And if the assumption is true, should I make a note in the doc that you
can make the address and size bigger?
Cheers,
Sean