From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.bootlin.com ([62.4.15.54]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1fmP3m-0006BV-M8 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 05 Aug 2018 19:51:28 +0000 Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2018 21:51:10 +0200 From: Boris Brezillon To: Robert Jarzmik Cc: Mike Dunn , Daniel Mack , Haojian Zhuang , Richard Weinberger , Miquel Raynal , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , Marek Vasut , Sergey Larin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mtd: rawnand: Remove docg4 Message-ID: <20180805215110.7464488a@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: <87effc1vck.fsf@belgarion.home> References: <20180804205923.25298-1-boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> <87effc1vck.fsf@belgarion.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Robert, On Sun, 05 Aug 2018 21:12:11 +0200 Robert Jarzmik wrote: > Boris Brezillon writes: > > > The diskonchip G4 driver does not fit very well in the raw/parallel > > NAND framework simply because such chips have an internal controller > > translating DoC-specific commands into NAND ones. > > > > Keeping such a driver in the raw NAND framework is a real burden for > > NAND maintainers. > Hi Boris, > > I understand the "burden" part, yet we all have our burdens as old code > maintainers. Well, we have plenty of old drivers to maintain, but this one clearly stands out in that it should never have been interfaced with the NAND framework (the docg4 command set is completely different from the parallel NAND command set). Note that you did not put docg3 in the NAND framework, and after looking at the driver and the spec, I think you were right, because docg3/4 clearly did (and do) not fit in the NAND framework. > But still, you're going to remove a working driver from one of my > platforms. This is not something I'm really happy about. I wouldn't be so prompt at saying the driver works, this patch says the opposite [1], and it's apparently not something that has been broken recently. > > At least, I'd like to hear from Mike that he doesn't use this anymore. I'd also like to hear back from Sergey (who posted [1]). As I said in my RFC, I'm not opposed to keeping support for docg4 as long as it goes out of drivers/mtd/nand/raw, either by being merged with the docg3 driver (whose reg layout looks surprisingly similar) or be being interfaced with the recently introduced bus agnostic NAND layer. But if nobody shows interest in helping me getting this driver reworked the proper way, I'm not willing to keep it. Regards, Boris [1]https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/960428/