SV: [PATCH v4 17/19] mtd: rawnand: Introduce nand_choose_best_vendor_sdr_iface()

[Rickard X Andersson <Rickard.Andersson@axis.com>]

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:47 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:

> +/**
> + * nand_choose_best_sdr_iface - given a data interface, find the closest
> + *                              mode/timings set for this interface supported
> + *                              by both the NAND controller and the NAND chip
> + * @chip: the NAND chip
> + * @best_iface: the best data interface (can eventually be updated)
> + */
> +static int nand_choose_best_sdr_iface(struct nand_chip *chip,
> +                                     struct nand_data_interface *best_iface)
> +{
> +       const struct nand_controller_ops *ops = chip->controller->ops;
> +       int mode, ret;
> +
> +       /* Verify the controller supports the requested interface */
> +       ret = ops->setup_data_interface(chip, NAND_DATA_IFACE_CHECK_ONLY,
> +                                       best_iface);
> +       if (!ret)
> +               return ret;
> +
> +       /* Fallback to slower modes */
> +       for (mode = best_iface->timings.mode - 1; mode >= 0; mode--) {
> +               ret = onfi_fill_data_interface(chip, best_iface,
> +                                              NAND_SDR_IFACE, mode);
> +               if (ret)
> +                       continue;
> +
> +               ret = ops->setup_data_interface(chip,
> +                                               NAND_DATA_IFACE_CHECK_ONLY,
> +                                               best_iface);
> +               if (!ret)
> +                       break;
> +       }
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +

Should we not start looping from "mode = best_iface->timings.mode" ? The first setup_data_interface call in the above function tests the specific timings or am I missing something?

BR,
Rickard
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/