From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <mike@compulab.co.il>
Cc: Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com>,
David Woodhouse <david.woodhouse@intel.com>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@gmail.com>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Lei Wen <adrian.wenl@gmail.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/20] mtd: pxa3xx_nand: refuse the flash definition get from platform
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 14:18:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201005251418.21630.marek.vasut@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BFBA4BA.9020502@compulab.co.il>
Dne Út 25. května 2010 12:21:46 Mike Rapoport napsal(a):
> Lei Wen wrote:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Mike Rapoport <mike@compulab.co.il> wrote:
> >> Lei Wen wrote:
> >>> Hi Mike,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Mike Rapoport <mike@compulab.co.il>
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Lei,
> >>>>
> >>>> Lei Wen wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Mike,
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) I don't like hadrcoding of NAND parameters into the driver. You
> >>>> remove *deprecetad* CONFIG_MTD_NAND_PXA3xx_BUILTIN configuration
> >>>> option and instead
> >>>> you enforce use of built-in definitions. The driver in its current
> >>>> state is
> >>>> robust enough to allow platforms to define optimized NAND timings
> >>>> either in
> >>>> the bootloader or in the kernel. If you don't like that multiple
> >>>> platforms
> >>>> define the same flash chip create an enumeration of built-in types and
> >>>> let
> >>>> platforms to use this enumeration to select the NAND chip. But,
> >>>> anyway, there should be a fallback mode that will support NAND chips
> >>>> that are not defined in the driver, probably with suboptimal timings.
> >>>
> >>> Original driver also use hardcoding. And in bootloader, this timing
> >>> parameter is also hard coding.
> >>> We cannot deduce a parameter set only from the nand id, that is why we
> >>> need a table to preset it.
> >>> If one nand chip is not listed in that table, the chip id would still
> >>> be printed out, so that we can do something for that.
> >>> If we encourage people to continue on this, we would not able to
> >>> really "driver" that nand.
> >>
> >> Currently pxa3xx-nand has three operational modes:
> >> - use NAND parameters supplied by the platform
> >> - use presets configured by the bootloader chain
> >> - use built-in NAND parameters, marked as deprecated in favor of the
> >> first two
> >> You remove the first two modes completely and require that each and
> >> every NAND chip used on pxa3xx based platform will be added to the
> >> driver. This way you make the driver less robust and harder to use for
> >> platform developers, not mentioning you're breaking the existing
> >> platforms. In my opinion, the driver *may* support built-in definitions
> >> for certain NAND flashes and *must* support configuration of the NAND
> >> parameters by the platform code and bootloader.
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > Well... I would submit another patch set which would reserve a way
> > that platform could pass its parameter setting.
> > Like specify the certain type of nand chip parameter for each chip
> > select. Is that ok for you?
> >
> > For bootloader pass parameter method, I think this way should be
> > dropped... For there is attributed which we could not tell from
> > registers...
> > What do you think of this?
>
> Can you please elaborate what are the attributes that cannot be detected?
MFPR drive strength maybe ? That's none of kernel's concern (as of now).
>
> > Thanks,
> > Lei
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: marek.vasut@gmail.com (Marek Vasut)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 01/20] mtd: pxa3xx_nand: refuse the flash definition get from platform
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 14:18:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201005251418.21630.marek.vasut@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BFBA4BA.9020502@compulab.co.il>
Dne ?t 25. kv?tna 2010 12:21:46 Mike Rapoport napsal(a):
> Lei Wen wrote:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Mike Rapoport <mike@compulab.co.il> wrote:
> >> Lei Wen wrote:
> >>> Hi Mike,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Mike Rapoport <mike@compulab.co.il>
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Lei,
> >>>>
> >>>> Lei Wen wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Mike,
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) I don't like hadrcoding of NAND parameters into the driver. You
> >>>> remove *deprecetad* CONFIG_MTD_NAND_PXA3xx_BUILTIN configuration
> >>>> option and instead
> >>>> you enforce use of built-in definitions. The driver in its current
> >>>> state is
> >>>> robust enough to allow platforms to define optimized NAND timings
> >>>> either in
> >>>> the bootloader or in the kernel. If you don't like that multiple
> >>>> platforms
> >>>> define the same flash chip create an enumeration of built-in types and
> >>>> let
> >>>> platforms to use this enumeration to select the NAND chip. But,
> >>>> anyway, there should be a fallback mode that will support NAND chips
> >>>> that are not defined in the driver, probably with suboptimal timings.
> >>>
> >>> Original driver also use hardcoding. And in bootloader, this timing
> >>> parameter is also hard coding.
> >>> We cannot deduce a parameter set only from the nand id, that is why we
> >>> need a table to preset it.
> >>> If one nand chip is not listed in that table, the chip id would still
> >>> be printed out, so that we can do something for that.
> >>> If we encourage people to continue on this, we would not able to
> >>> really "driver" that nand.
> >>
> >> Currently pxa3xx-nand has three operational modes:
> >> - use NAND parameters supplied by the platform
> >> - use presets configured by the bootloader chain
> >> - use built-in NAND parameters, marked as deprecated in favor of the
> >> first two
> >> You remove the first two modes completely and require that each and
> >> every NAND chip used on pxa3xx based platform will be added to the
> >> driver. This way you make the driver less robust and harder to use for
> >> platform developers, not mentioning you're breaking the existing
> >> platforms. In my opinion, the driver *may* support built-in definitions
> >> for certain NAND flashes and *must* support configuration of the NAND
> >> parameters by the platform code and bootloader.
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > Well... I would submit another patch set which would reserve a way
> > that platform could pass its parameter setting.
> > Like specify the certain type of nand chip parameter for each chip
> > select. Is that ok for you?
> >
> > For bootloader pass parameter method, I think this way should be
> > dropped... For there is attributed which we could not tell from
> > registers...
> > What do you think of this?
>
> Can you please elaborate what are the attributes that cannot be detected?
MFPR drive strength maybe ? That's none of kernel's concern (as of now).
>
> > Thanks,
> > Lei
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-25 12:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-14 6:11 [PATCH 01/20] mtd: pxa3xx_nand: refuse the flash definition get from platform Haojian Zhuang
2010-05-14 6:11 ` Haojian Zhuang
2010-05-14 11:09 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2010-05-14 11:09 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2010-05-24 7:31 ` Mike Rapoport
2010-05-24 7:31 ` Mike Rapoport
2010-05-24 8:27 ` Lei Wen
2010-05-24 8:27 ` Lei Wen
2010-05-24 11:00 ` Mike Rapoport
2010-05-24 11:00 ` Mike Rapoport
2010-05-24 11:53 ` Lei Wen
2010-05-24 11:53 ` Lei Wen
2010-05-24 12:11 ` Marek Vasut
2010-05-24 12:11 ` Marek Vasut
2010-05-24 12:31 ` Lei Wen
2010-05-24 12:31 ` Lei Wen
2010-05-24 13:05 ` Marek Vasut
2010-05-24 13:05 ` Marek Vasut
2010-05-24 13:18 ` Lei Wen
2010-05-24 13:18 ` Lei Wen
2010-05-24 13:21 ` Mike Rapoport
2010-05-24 13:21 ` Mike Rapoport
2010-05-24 13:40 ` Lei Wen
2010-05-24 13:40 ` Lei Wen
2010-05-24 15:44 ` Daniel Mack
2010-05-24 15:44 ` Daniel Mack
2010-05-25 10:21 ` Mike Rapoport
2010-05-25 10:21 ` Mike Rapoport
2010-05-25 12:18 ` Marek Vasut [this message]
2010-05-25 12:18 ` Marek Vasut
2010-05-25 13:01 ` Lei Wen
2010-05-25 13:01 ` Lei Wen
2010-05-25 13:21 ` Eric Miao
2010-05-25 13:21 ` Eric Miao
2010-05-26 13:35 ` Lei Wen
2010-05-26 13:35 ` Lei Wen
2010-05-26 9:57 ` Mike Rapoport
2010-05-26 9:57 ` Mike Rapoport
2010-05-26 13:42 ` Lei Wen
2010-05-26 13:42 ` Lei Wen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201005251418.21630.marek.vasut@gmail.com \
--to=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
--cc=adrian.wenl@gmail.com \
--cc=david.woodhouse@intel.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=eric.y.miao@gmail.com \
--cc=haojian.zhuang@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mike@compulab.co.il \
--cc=mkl@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.