Re: [PATCH 00/11] mtd: nand_bbt: introduce independent nand BBT

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>]

Hi Peter,

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:20:19 +0800
Peter Pan <peterpansjtu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ezequiel,
> 
> Sorry for reply your mail late. And thaks a lot for reviewing it.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Ezequiel Garcia
> <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On 13 March 2016 at 23:47, Peter Pan <peterpansjtu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sorry for send the v3 out late. I went through a busy time in the past
> >> two month.
> >>
> >> Currently nand_bbt.c is tied with struct nand_chip, and it makes other
> >> NAND family chips hard to use nand_bbt.c. Maybe it's the reason why
> >> onenand has own bbt(onenand_bbt.c).
> >>
> >> Separate struct nand_chip from BBT code can make current BBT shareable.
> >> We create struct nand_bbt to take place of nand_chip in nand_bbt.c.
> >> Struct nand_bbt contains all the information BBT needed from outside and
> >> it should be embedded into NAND family chip struct (such as struct nand_chip).
> >>
> >> Below is mtd folder structure we want:
> >>         drivers/mtd/nand/<all-nand-core-code>
> >>         drivers/mtd/nand/raw/<raw-nand-controller-drivers>
> >>         drivers/mtd/nand/spi/<spi-nand-code>
> >>         drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/<onenand-code>
> >>         drivers/mtd/nand/chips/<manufacturer-spcific-code>
> >>
> >
> > You mention this structure, but nothing in the current patchset is actually
> > enforcing it. This is more the future direction we are going.
> 
> Yes, this is what we want.
> >
> >> Most of the patch is borrowed from Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>.
> >> http://git.infradead.org/users/norris/linux-mtd.git/shortlog/refs/heads/nand-bbt
> >> I decided the authorship of each patch by contribution. Please let me know if
> >> there is something unproper.
> >> Based on Brian's suggestion and Boris's comments, I make 11 independent
> >> patches. Previous patch is http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/492066/
> >> After discussion with Boris and Ezequiel, I realized above structure is better,
> >> so I drop the patch to move nand_bbt.c to mtd folder.
> >>
> >
> > I have reviewed this patchset, and it looks mostly good to me. I can
> > spot trivial style comments, or comments related to the commit logs, or the
> > way commits are splitted.
> >
> > Boris will probably have more insightful comments to make.
> >
> > However, before starting my silly bikeshedding I'd like to know if we all
> > agree with the patchset's overall scheme.
> >
> > It would be good to finally move forward with this, to take mt29f out
> > of staging and also support other SPI NAND vendors.
> 
> Yes. We plan to move mt29f_spi_nand out from staging. But because mt29f_spi_nand
> is under raw/parallel NAND framework, it mismatch the stucture we
> want. Rewite it
> under SPI NAND framework may be a better choice, right? Actually I'm
> working on this
> now.

Yes, that's what I expect. And since this SPI NAND framework does not
exist yet, I think it's a good time to create the generic nand_device
struct (we'll switch other NAND based devices to this structure
afterwards).

Thanks,

Boris

-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com