2018-08-20 20:20 GMT+02:00 Boris Brezillon [off-list ref]:

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:

        mtdnode {
                nvmem-cells {
                        #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 {
                                        #address-cells = <1>;
                                        #size-cells = <1>;

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

If there'll be an agreement on the bindings: will you be willing to
merge Alban's patch even without support in the code for the above
(with the assumption that it will be added later)? My use-case is on
non-DT systems and creating nvmem devices corresponding to MTD
partitions if fine by me. I also don't have the means to test the
support for these bindings if I were to actually write them myself.

Best regards,
Bartosz Golaszewski