From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: adrian.wenl@gmail.com (Lei Wen) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:24:20 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 05/25] pxa3xx_nand: rework irq logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Eric Miao wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Lei Wen wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Eric Miao wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Haojian Zhuang >>> wrote: >>>> From 18d589a078871a09dec0862241fedd2d1d07be85 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>>> From: Lei Wen >>>> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 14:05:46 +0800 >>>> Subject: [PATCH 05/25] pxa3xx_nand: rework irq logic >>>> >>>> Enable all irq when we start the nand controller, and >>>> put all the transaction logic in the pxa3xx_nand_irq. >>>> >>> >>> Didn't look into the change too much, but the idea sounds to me like >>> chaining all the logic with different IRQ events, which was my original >>> reason of having different states. And considering the page read/write >>> is actually to an internal SRAM within the controller, I guess it's quick >>> enough. (though I'd suggest to do some experiments of time profiling >>> to see if it's going to increase the interrupt latency) >>> >>>> By doing this way, we could dramatically increase the >>>> performance by avoid unnecessary delay. >>>> >>> >>> The removal of __read_id() doesn't look to be part of this patch, no? >>> >> For write_cmd function has been discard and __read_id function would >> not be used, if >> continue to keep the __read_id() definition would lead to make failure... >> > > Well, the logic is: this change doesn't belong to this patch, so is it possible > to separate the change apart and still keep it compiling? > Em... Seems reasonable, I'll try to do that. :-) Best regards, Lei