Re: atmel_nand pmecc on 8k page [RFC]

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>]

On 15:19 Mon 16 Jun     , Bo Shen wrote:
> 
> Hi Matteo,
> 
> On 06/13/2014 08:48 PM, Matteo Fortini wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >glad you found my patch useful. Sascha rejected it because he sees it
> >more fit to separate the initialization of sama5d3 and sam9 since they
> >are quite different.
> >
> >I started, as advised by Sascha, to create into sam9_smc.c the function
> >
> >void sama5d3_smc_configure(int id, int cs, struct sama5d3_smc_config
> >*config)
> >
> >but this brings on some other changes to keep the same structure of
> >functions,  i.e. we would need to implement
> >
> >static void sama5d3_smc_cs_configure(void __iomem *base, struct
> >sama5d3_smc_config *config)
> >
> >and all the related functions, since the argument changes from struct
> >sam9_smc_config * to struct sama5d3_smc_config *
> >
> >Now I'm asking you all for a comment: should we go ahead and create a
> >new sama5d3_smc.c file with all the functions (some will unfortunately
> >be a duplicate of those present in sam9_smc.c), or should I do a partial
> >hack to insert sama5d3 specific functions into sam9_smc.c (like, for
> >example, playing with config structures so that the sam9 one is just the
> >head of the sama5d3)?
> 
> I think we'd better to create a new sama5d3_smc.c. This will be more
> readable, and also benefit for the new coming SoC.


NACK

that was raised on the kernel the sam9 & sama5 does does share the IP the a5
just have more features

Best Regards,
J.
> 
> >Thank you in advance for your comments, I ask Raphaël to wait until this
> >patch is settled to send in his changes. They will be very useful for
> >me, too (I had to deactivate PMECC to use my NAND...)
> >
> >M
> 
> Best Regards,
> Bo Shen

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox