From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, patrice.vilchez@atmel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 3.0] AT91: Change nand buswidth logic to match hardware default configuration
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 16:41:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E11D123.9070409@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201107041625.25972.arnd@arndb.de>
Le 04/07/2011 16:25, Arnd Bergmann :
> On Monday 04 July 2011, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> Le 01/07/2011 12:25, Nicolas Ferre :
>>> The recently modified nand buswitth configuration is not aligned with
>>> board reality: the double footprint on boards is always populated with 8bits
>>> buswidth nand flashes.
>>> So we have to consider that without particular configuration the 8bits
>>> buswidth is selected by default.
>>> Moreover, the previous logic was always using !board_have_nand_8bit(), we
>>> change it to a simpler: board_have_nand_16bit().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
>>> Tested-by: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com>
>>
>> Arnd,
>>
>> Can you please handle this parch for 3.0-final as a bug fix through the
>> arm-soc.git tree?
>>
>> You can queue it in addition of the pull request sent by
>> Jean-Christophe: "AT91: Fix pull requset".
>
> Ok, I've integrated it in the branch and will send the pull request.
>
> My preference would be to see fixes this late in the cycle more
> minmal. This patch does two things: 1. change the polarity of the
> system_rev bit as a bug fix and 2. change the polarity of the
> function reading it as a cleanup. Both changes look absolutely
> ok, but it's better to do the cleanup for the next kernel.
>
> In this case, studying the patch more closely shows that it's
> very harmless, but I'd rather not have to look that closely.
Well, in fact it is a fix against what was introduced in a 3.0 patch
which I found to be wrong.
The reason because I do not want to be in next kernel is the fact that
it can puzzle the user (people that want to use kernel without changing
the system_rev between 2.6.39 -> 3.0 and again revert their changes for
3.0 -> 3.1).
> Am I correct that the bug is a regression against 2.6.39?
No, in fact it was introduced during 3.0 early -rc.
Anyway, thanks a lot Arnd.
Best regards,
--
Nicolas Ferre
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-04 14:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-01 10:25 [PATCH for 3.0] AT91: Change nand buswidth logic to match hardware default configuration Nicolas Ferre
2011-07-04 9:37 ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-07-04 14:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-07-04 14:41 ` Nicolas Ferre [this message]
2011-07-04 15:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-07-04 15:17 ` Nicolas Ferre
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4E11D123.9070409@atmel.com \
--to=nicolas.ferre@atmel.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=patrice.vilchez@atmel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox