Re: [PATCH 0/6] MTD: lantiq: xway: various nand fixes

[John Crispin <blogic@openwrt.org>]

On 05/01/2016 18:53, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 08:34:04AM +0100, John Crispin wrote:
>> On 05/01/2016 00:30, Brian Norris wrote:
>>> Is there a good reason this driver uses plat_nand? That seems like an
>>> unnecessary abstraction layer. It'd be clearer to just refactor the
>>> driver to be a proper platform driver...
>>>
>>> Also, I see that there's no DT binding doc.
>>>
>>> Can these things be cleaned up?
>>
>> grml, i was kinda hoping this would be a no brainer. the problem is that
>> i don't even have the HW so refactoring / big changes are a no go or
>> would require me to find users with the HW first.
> 
> Well, I could be convinced to take patches that are a little better
> documented (i.e., have a little better commit descriptions), if they
> fix real issues. If you're going to add device tree properties, though,
> you need a DT binding doc. And the refactoring to a platform driver
> should be pretty trivial, but it's not an absolute blocking requirement,
> since the driver's already in mainline.
> 
> BTW, one issue with the current driver, if you're going to add a DT
> binding doc: you currently require the "gen_nand" string, like this, in
> your openwrt DTS(I) files:
> 
> 	nand-parts@0 {
> 		compatible = "gen_nand", "lantiq,nand-xway";
> 		...
> 	};
> 
> That's not an acceptable binding, and that's where refactoring the
> driver would help too.
> 
>> i'll try to get this resolved for v4.6.
> 
> Brian
> 
Hi Brian,

would you take this stuff around rc2-3 or would that be too late ? i
already manage to track down one of the original authors and he agreed
to help testing.

	John