From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.10])
 by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux))
 id 1Spjmf-0006PX-Re
 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:36:09 +0000
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
To: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: allow NAND_NO_SUBPAGE_WRITE to be set from
 driver
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:35:28 +0200
References: <1342196904-13850-1-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com>
 <5000589B.3010808@freescale.com>
 <CAN8TOE_MXc7CfSFekJP_ApiOTH6aYS=LaKKk2s80dVqpsJOwaw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN8TOE_MXc7CfSFekJP_ApiOTH6aYS=LaKKk2s80dVqpsJOwaw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201207131935.29169.marex@denx.de>
Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
 linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Huang Shijie <shijie8@gmail.com>,
 Artem Bityutskiy <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>

Dear Brian Norris,

> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote:
> > On 07/13/2012 12:12 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> The NAND_CHIPOPTIONS_MSK has limited utility and is causing real bugs.
> >>> It silently masks off at least one flag that might be set by the
> >>> driver (NAND_NO_SUBPAGE_WRITE). This breaks the GPMI NAND driver and
> >>> possibly others.
> >>> 
> >>> Really, as long as driver writers exercise a small amount of care with
> >>> NAND_* options, this mask is not necessary at all; it was only here to
> >>> prevent certain options from accidentally being set by the driver. But
> >>> the original thought turns out to be a bad idea occasionally. Thus,
> >>> kill it.
> >>> 
> >>> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: Huang Shijie <shijie8@gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
> >> 
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >> Maybe we should simply split it into two sets of flags to make it clear
> >> -- chip ones and controller ones ?
> > 
> > Isn't that what we're trying to get rid of?

Sure, but aren't there controller specific properties and chip-specific 
properties? And than even chip-specific state?

> I thought so.
> 
> Brian

Best regards,
Marek Vasut