From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com (Nicolas Ferre) Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 10:05:42 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] ATMEL, AVR32: inline nand partition table access In-Reply-To: References: <1306676962-22308-1-git-send-email-dbaryshkov@gmail.com> <1306935129.1097.3.camel@hcegtvedt.norway.atmel.com> Message-ID: <4DEC8A56.1030707@atmel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Le 01/06/2011 16:54, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov : > On 6/1/11, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote: >> On Sun, 2011-05-29 at 17:49 +0400, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: >>> Currently atmel_nand driver used by AT91 and AVR32 calls a special >>> callback >>> which return nand partition table and number of partitions. However in all >>> boards this callback returns just static data. So drop this callback and >>> make atmel_nand use partition table provided statically via platform_data. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov >> >> Thanks for this update, always nice seeing code being optimized. I >> really can't recall why it was made like this in the first place... >> >> For the AVR32 related parts: >> >> Acked-by: Hans-Christian Egtvedt >> >> >> >> Will this go through the linux-mtd tree (since it spans two archs) or >> should it go through an arch tree? > > On one hand, I'd prefer for this to go through the linux-mtd, if noone objects, > as I'd also like to submit several (a pile) patches cleaning up mtd > partitioning, which would depend on this. > > OTOH, I think there will be a cleanup of AT91 platform, which would bring > lot's of conflicts with this patch, if it goes through linux-mtd. I am in favor for a mainline inclusion through linux-mtd tree. On the AT91 side, we will have to take this inclusion into account to avoid merge conflicts... But as long as this cleanup is not ready yet, I prefer to go forward this way. For that purpose, that would be good to see this patch in linux-next. Thanks to all of you, bye, -- Nicolas Ferre