OF compatible MTD platform RAM driver ?

[Segher Boessenkool]

>> So, all in all, I think we should just give these "auxiliary memory"
>> devices a name of "ram" c.q. "rom", and some "reg", and that should
>> be all that is needed: the main memory probe stuff won't consider
>> these nodes, and the (platform) device probe code can do whatever it
>> wants (create mtd devices, I guess).
>
> Ok, I get your point. I'll prepare a new documentation patch; changes 
> to
> physmap_of.c will go away.

Thanks.

> If I understand you correctly, there should be no "compatible" 
> property on the
> ram and rom devices.

They aren't normally needed here, I think.

> Should the "non-volatile", "slow" and "static ram"
> properties still be expressed in the device tree ?

If those are useful.  I'll need to see a proposed binding to form
an opinion on this, it's too vague now, sorry.


Segher