From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755499Ab1GDOl7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2011 10:41:59 -0400 Received: from newsmtp5.atmel.com ([204.2.163.5]:7053 "EHLO sjogate2.atmel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751424Ab1GDOl5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2011 10:41:57 -0400 Message-ID: <4E11D123.9070409@atmel.com> Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 16:41:39 +0200 From: Nicolas Ferre Organization: atmel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnd Bergmann 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 References: <1309515924-22531-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> <4E1189BD.509@atmel.com> <201107041625.25972.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <201107041625.25972.arnd@arndb.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 >>> Tested-by: Ludovic Desroches >> >> 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