From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp4-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.4]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1OeOGH-00019H-Rs for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:14:43 +0000 From: Florian Fainelli To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] NAND: add support for reading ONFI parameters from NAND device Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:10:43 +0200 References: <201007290047.06394.ffainelli@freebox.fr> <4C50BF59.3020700@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <4C50BF59.3020700@broadcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201007291010.43527.ffainelli@freebox.fr> Cc: Maxime Bizon , David Woodhouse , Matthieu CASTET , Brian Norris List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Brian, On Thursday 29 July 2010 01:38:01 Brian Norris wrote: > > diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/nand.h b/include/linux/mtd/nand.h > > index a81b185..ad7f58f 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/mtd/nand.h > > +++ b/include/linux/mtd/nand.h > > > > > @@ -190,6 +194,9 @@ typedef enum { > > > > /* Device behaves just like nand, but is readonly */ > > #define NAND_ROM 0x00000800 > > > > +/* Chip supports ONFI */ > > +#define NAND_ONFI 0x00001000 > > I've been wondering: how independent are the flags in > include/linux/mtd/bbm.h and nand.h? I've working on some patches dealing > with various such flags. For instance, I know that the following patch > dealt with a potential conflict between flags in bbm.h and nand.h: > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2010-June/030703.html > > I don't know if there's a possibility of conflict between NAND_BBT_WRITE > (bbm.h) and your new NAND_ONFI (nand.h); both are 0x00001000. I know > *some* options are written into nand_chip->options and later copied onto > the options in nand_bbt_descr->options for BBT usage, e.g., I just rewrote > part of this as a new function nand_create_default_bbt_descr() in > nand_bbt.c: > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2010-July/030911.html > > Other pieces of the code perform similar functions at the moment. I admit I did not look too closely at these recent changes, but it seems safe to move the NAND_ONFI a bit higher. I will take the other comments and respin the patch. Thanks! -- Florian