From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from 2.mo69.mail-out.ovh.net ([178.33.251.80] helo=mo69.mail-out.ovh.net) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WxU7l-0005qD-Ja for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 04:38:58 +0000 Received: from mail139.ha.ovh.net (b9.ovh.net [213.186.33.59]) by mo69.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id C368EFFB82D for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:28:21 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:31:54 +0200 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Message-ID: <20140619043154.GE15426@ns203013.ovh.net> References: <539A5353.7090306@atmel.com> <539AF326.7010504@gmail.com> <539E9A90.4010808@atmel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <539E9A90.4010808@atmel.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: atmel_nand pmecc on 8k page [RFC] To: Bo Shen Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org 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 Rapha=EBl to wait until th= is > >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