From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from aeryn.fluff.org.uk ([87.194.8.8] helo=kira.home.fluff.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Mzpbq-0003va-OT for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:37:06 +0000 Message-ID: <4ADC4137.1060204@simtec.co.uk> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:36:39 +0100 From: Ben Dooks MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dedekind1@gmail.com Subject: Re: NAND: Add flags to the probe calls to control scan behaviour References: <20091013090019.091262272@fluff.org.uk> <1255534646.32489.169.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1255534646.32489.169.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Simtec Linux Team List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 10:00 +0100, Ben Dooks wrote: >> plain text document attachment (nand-update-probe2.patch) >> Add a flags field to the two scan calls to control the behaviour of the >> scan process. Currently the only flag we define is NAND_PROBE_SPECULATIVE >> to stop the user-worrying messages 'No NAND device found!!!'. This message >> often worries users (was three exclamation marks really necessary?) and is >> even worse in systems such as the Simtec Osiris where there may be optional >> NAND devices which are not known until probe time. >> >> The approach is to change nand_scan_ident and nand_scan to have a new flags >> field, and add wrapper functions to the header files so that we do not have >> to get around all the drivers doing a search and replace. If we where to >> change all the call sites for nand_scan() and nand_scan_ident() we would >> touch about 40 drivers. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks >> Signed-off-by: Simtec Linux Team > > So you are introducing this new flag just to make generic NAND layer be > silent if it cannot identify device type, right? I'd rather it be silent if it cannot find a device, as a number of our boards have slots where NAND devices may be fitted by the customer and as such all possibilities are registered with the NAND driver. > Could you please elaborate why more why is this needed a bit more? What > is the driver? Because customers get scared when errors with '!!!' turn up. > Why not to just remove that print at all? Possible, but what about the case where there is a legitimate problem with the device that is supposed to be there. -- Ben Dooks, Software Engineer, Simtec Electronics http://www.simtec.co.uk/