Re: [RFC PATCH] mtd: rawnand: ams-delta: use ->exec_op()

Janusz Krzysztofik
2018-10-04T14:10:15Z

On Thursday, October 4, 2018 3:59:33 PM CEST Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:52:57 +0200
> Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 4:06:34 PM CEST Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 15:55:25 +0200
> > > Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Implementation of NAND_OP_WAITRDY_INSTR has been based on legacy
> > > > > > nand_wait_ready(),
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't remember what the ams-delta ->dev_ready()/->waitfunc() hooks
> > > > > are doing, but is shouldn't be too hard to replace them by an
> > > > > ams_delta_wait_ready() func.
> > > >
> > > > Default nand_wait() is used as ->waitfunc(), and ->dev_ready() returns
R/B
> > > > GPIO pin status.
> > >
> > > Okay. Then it might make sense to provide a generic helper to poll a
> > > gpio.
> > >
> > > void nand_gpio_waitrdy(struct nand_chip *chip, struct gpio_desc *gpiod)
> > > {
> > > ...
> > > }
> >
> > How about a still more generic helper which accepts dev_ready() callback
as an
> > argument?
>
> Nope, I still prefer the GPIO based one. We'll see if others need a
> a more generic helper, but I doubt it.

OK.

Legacy nand_wait_ready() uses a hardcoded timeout value of 400 ms. Should we
follow the same approach in nand_gpio_waitrdy(), or should we rather let
drivers pass the timeout value, like in case of nand_soft_waitrdy()?

Thanks,
Janusz