Subject: Re: Document and implement an improved flash device binding

From: Segher Boessenkool <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:58:39 +0200

>>>> Let's have bank-width optional instead, it's more natural
>>>> that way for the common case of just one chip.  Or, you can
>>>> say that either is optional.
>>>
>>> No, I'm disinclined to do that since bank-width is the primary bit of
>>> information that the driver needs.
>>
>> Bzzzzt.  That's not what the device tree is about; it should
>> describe the hardware, it shouldn't be just a config file for
>> the current Linux drivers.
>
> Yes, yes, so you've said many times.

Glad you noticed :-)

> But where there are multiple ways of encoding exactly the same
> information, I don't see that we can't use driver convenience as a
> deciding factor.

But a driver that supports interleaving needs _both_ those pieces
of information, and a driver that doesn't needs the device-width
only.

Sure, the current MTD driver will use some heuristics to guess
the device width, but an interface via which it can get it from
the device tree will have to be added anyway.

Segher