Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] ARM: OMAP2+: onenand: prepare for gpmc driver migration

[Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>]

On 07/03/2012 03:17 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com> [120702 10:30]:
>>
>> On 07/02/2012 01:36 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>>
>>> In general, I doubt that we can come up with better calculations. The existing
>>> code pretty well already follows the device spec timings. And using cycle values
>>> for some registers is the right thing to do according to the connected device
>>> specs no matter what the frequency is. In those cases converting from time values
>>> to cycles does not make sense.
>>
>> Ok agree, but the problem here is how to provide the timings to the
>> driver. The onenand code is doing a lot of rounding based upon the gpmc
>> clock before it presents the timings (in nano-seconds) to the gpmc
>> function to calculate the final timings and program the gpmc
>> chip-select. So therefore I think that we have the following options ...
>>
>> 1. The simplest is to continue using a global variable for storing the
>> gpmc f-clk handle and have the OneNAND timings calculated prior to
>> probing the gpmc driver.
> 
> Well we should not expose gpmc fck handle to the drivers..

Yes, I was hoping we could avoid continuing to do this.

>> 2. Provide some sort of "retime" callback that the gpmc driver can call
>> at probe time to calculate the timings.
> 
> Yes how about the gpmc using driver code registers itself with the gpmc code
> and also registers it's retime function with the gpmc? That way the gpmc fck
> stays inside the gpmc code, and the driver specific retime function should
> be able to do the calculation based on driver clocks. The retime function
> needs to have also a pointer to driver private data for it's clocks etc.
> 
> It seems this retime function may need to be called by the gpmc code when
> L3 changes, and the driver code if the driver is switching between runtime
> and idle clocks like tusb6010 for example does.

Seems fine to me.

Cheers
Jon