Re: Handling multiple NAND chips -- take 2

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 18:44 +0100, J.D. Bakker wrote:
> This is the plan; fire at will.

Why? What'd poor Will do wrong?

Join us on IRC and tglx can heckle you too :)

> * Assumption: all devices are the same type and size.

I think that's acceptable. It's _definitely_ OK on NOR. On NAND we may
be sharing some control lines between different chips, but I still think
it's OK and we can deal with that in the board-level driver.

> * No support (yet) for building a wider data bus through putting 
> multiple devices in parallel

I think that's OK too.

> * All detected devices are concatenated and represented as one large 
> linear array of pages

Look at the DiskOnChip Millennium Plus address-mangling code and
comments above DoC_GetDataOffset().

If we could support that it would perhaps be useful.

> * All devices are soldered to a motherboard. We are not interested in 
> taking devices out of the array.

Not sure. Look at how the new DiskOnChip driver has to screw around
before the chip probing, so it can pretend this is true. T'would be nice
to deal with a sparse array, at least.

And if you mean hotplug -- think SmartMedia.

> * No optimizations (yet) wrt accessing device n while device m is 
> busy. Easier to get working code fast than to get fast code working, 
> and I don't see a way to take advantage of parallelism without 
> modifying higher layers

OK.

> The general idea is to take a 'global' page_addr and turn it into a 
> (chip,page) tuple like this:
> 
> chip = global_page_addr / pages_per_chip;
> page = global_page_addr % pages_per_chip;
> 
> Does that look sane ?

I think so. I prefer it to the other.


-- 
dwmw2