[RFC] Adding MTD to device tree

Segher Boessenkool segher at kernel.crashing.org
Sun Aug 13 04:44:55 EST 2006

>>>>    - device_type : one of "nand-flash", "nor-flash", or "rom".
>    I thought about having the separate device types initially, then  
> I decided that all the differences can be handled on the driver  
> level...

Not necessarily on all OSes.

>>> There are more than just those kinds of MTDs.  There's dataflash,
>>> AG-AND, NVRAM, ioremappable DRAM, etc.  I'd prefer it to just be   
>>> called "flash".  See more below.
>> Existing firmwares call it "rom", "nvram", "flash".  All of those
>> are easy; and I have really no opinion how all the weirdo nand-flash
>> etc. interfaces should be handled.
>> device_type communicates to the device-tree consumer what other
>> properties to expect in this node -- it does not indicate the exact
>> programming model of the device itself.
>    Erm, IIUC the exact set of properties is defined by the node  
> name (or the "compatible" property). The device type defines some  
> mandatory set of properties/methods but there may be some specific...

Exact set of properties isn't defined anywhere.  "device_type" defines a
pretty generic interface, mostly saying what methods will be there (but
you don't care for that for a flattened tree); "compatible" communicates
to the OS what this device is exactly (so it can select a device driver
to use, for example).  "name" should not be used by anything but humans

>> I suspect for most nand-flash you can get away with a device_type
>> of "nand-flash"; for some you might have to specify something more
>> detailed.
>    Hm, not sure that you need to be so much detailed with the  
> device type.
> The original OF spec. had device type "block" signifying any kind  
> of blocked storage device.

But memory devices aren't really block devices, for example, NOR-flash
is random access for everything but erase operations.

>>>>    - model : an identifier for the actual controller chip used.

>    This property might be marked optional still.

Then there's no reason to include it in the binding; "model" is
already defined in the base spec.

>> "compatible" contains a list, most specific first.  So for example
>> for a NOR-flash it could be "jedec-flash,nor-flash,flash" or whatnot.
>> (Btw: no comma's, but 0-chars in the actual properties!)
>    The "compatible" prop (as well as "name") should define which  
> driver to select according to spec. (the Generic Names spec.  
> delegates this role solely to the "compatible" prop). While  
> specifying the flash interface (JEDEC in this case) is indeed  
> useful (however, the current 'platform_device' based 'physmap'  
> implementation doesn't allow to pass the probe type to the driver),  
> the prop in the form suggested doesn't really help with selecting  
> the MTD map driver (without which you can't support a NOR flash). A  
> reference to 'physmap' should still be present in the node in one  
> or another form...

"compatible" denotes the device's specific programming interface,  
_not_ the
name of the device's driver in some random OS.  If you don't care for  
detailed interface (because your driver will probe for it itself for  
as you said), you can take the next-less-specific entry from  
"compatible" and
use that instead.  Although it would be better to just probe for the few
specific interfaces defined (jedec-flash, cfi-flash, and a few more  


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list