From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: eric.y.miao@gmail.com (Eric Miao) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:02:25 +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 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?