Re: [PATCH v2 2/6]nand/denali: Add bad block management for MRST

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 18:51 +0800, Chuanxiao.Dong wrote:
> 
> +choice
> +       prompt "Compile for"
> +       depends on MTD_NAND_DENALI
> +       default MRST_NAND_CONTROLLER
> +
> +config MRST_NAND_CONTROLLER
> +       bool "MRST NAND controller"
> +       help
> +
> +config CE4100_NAND_CONTROLLER
> +       bool "CE4100 NAND controller"
> +       help
> +
> +endchoice 


Hm, I don't like this much -- we ought to be able to compile a generic
kernel which will support *both* MRST and CE4100. 

(Actually, we *can* -- you don't use these options anywhere (yet?)
except as a gateway to letting us set the BBT_BLOCKNUM value.

It may also be worth switching CE4100 to use the same BBT scheme as
you're using in MRST -- don't all the same arguments apply there?

I'm guessing that you didn't change CE4100 just because you want to
retain on-medium compatibility? Let's ask Jason -- I suspect it would be
OK to change...

I'm also somewhat dubious about the way we abandon the BBT when we're
going to use Spectra -- and especially the use of the scratch register.
Can't we put that information into PCI config space if we really must
have it? I'll look over that in more detail...


-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@intel.com                              Intel Corporation