From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail-iw0-f177.google.com ([209.85.214.177])
	by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux))
	id 1Qbnwx-0004PJ-0e
	for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 06:08:36 +0000
Received: by iwn35 with SMTP id 35so968123iwn.36
	for <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>;
	Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] refactor mtd wait code
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
To: Matthieu CASTET <matthieu.castet@parrot.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:09:24 +0300
In-Reply-To: <4E09EC77.10501@parrot.com>
References: <1309105616-3609-1-git-send-email-matthieu.castet@parrot.com>
	<1309105616-3609-3-git-send-email-matthieu.castet@parrot.com>
	<1309248031.23597.45.camel@sauron> <1309248214.23597.47.camel@sauron>
	<4E09EC77.10501@parrot.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <1309327769.23597.101.camel@sauron>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com
List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list <linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/options/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>

On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:00 +0200, Matthieu CASTET wrote:
> Artem Bityutskiy a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 11:00 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2011-06-26 at 18:26 +0200, Matthieu CASTET wrote:
> >>> +/**
> >>> +  * This is call after sending a read command, or for autoincrement
> >>> +  * chip that need it (!NAND_NO_READRDY).
> >>> +  *
> >>> +  * We can't call NAND_CMD_STATUS here, because the read command
> >>> +  * is not finished
> >>> +  */
> >>> +static void nand_wait_read(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	/*
> >>> +	 * If we don't have access to the busy pin, we apply the given
> >>> +	 * command delay
> >>> +	 */
> >>> +	if (!chip->dev_ready) {
> >>> +		udelay(chip->chip_delay);
> >>> +	}
> >>> +	else {
> >>> +		/* Apply this short delay always to ensure that we do wait tWB in
> >>> +		 * any case on any machine. */
> >>> +		ndelay(100);
> >> Please, all these hard-coded numbers should be hidden in the specific
> >> driver.
> > 
> > Or could you please explain a bit better why this delay has to be part
> > of nand core? And why it is 100 and not 200?
> > 
> This delay is already in the nand core. I only put it in a common function :

OK, sorry, but would it be possible to take a look at how this patch
could be split on smaller ones to make review a bit simpler?

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy