Re: atmel_nand pmecc on 8k page [RFC]

[Bo Shen <voice.shen@atmel.com>]

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.

> 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