[U-Boot] [RFC 4/5] SPL:Defines function required to env read for IFC & env_nand

[Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>]

On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 21:35 +0530, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote:
> fsl_ifs_spl.c reads data from NAND and store at a memory location in raw mode.
> It does not used MTD layer.
> To read env variable from NAND MTD layer read/write required.
> 
> Hence, add mtd_block_isbad & nand_read_skip_bad function required during
> env variable read.
> 
> Also, avoid nand_info during env read for SPL
> 
> Signed-off-by: Prabhakar Kushwaha <prabhakar@freescale.com>
> ---
>  common/env_nand.c              |    7 ++++---
>  drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile      |    2 +-
>  drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_spl.c |   22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/common/env_nand.c b/common/env_nand.c
> index 7530962..7a7107f 100644
> --- a/common/env_nand.c
> +++ b/common/env_nand.c
> @@ -246,11 +246,13 @@ int readenv(size_t offset, u_char *buf)
>  	u_char *char_ptr;
>  
>  	blocksize = nand_info[0].erasesize;
> +#ifndef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
>  	if (!blocksize)
>  		return 1;
> -
>  	len = min(blocksize, CONFIG_ENV_SIZE);
> -
> +#else
> +	len = CONFIG_ENV_SIZE;
> +#endif

Use positive logic (ifdef/else, not ifndef/else).

Are you sure that CONFIG_ENV_SIZE will always be appropriate?  Shouldn't
you use CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BLOCK_SIZE in place of nand_info[0].erasesize?

> @@ -396,7 +398,6 @@ void env_relocate_spec(void)
>  		return;
>  	}
>  #endif
> -
>  	ret = readenv(CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET, (u_char *)buf);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		set_default_env("!readenv() failed");

Remove unrelated whitespace changes.

> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile
> index 366dee6..06d5d14 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ COBJS-$(CONFIG_SPL_NAND_LOAD) += nand_spl_load.o
>  COBJS-$(CONFIG_SPL_NAND_ECC) += nand_ecc.o
>  COBJS-$(CONFIG_SPL_NAND_BASE) += nand_base.o
>  COBJS-$(CONFIG_SPL_NAND_INIT) += nand.o
> +COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_FSL_IFC) += fsl_ifc_spl.o

No, it's still a minimal NAND driver (i.e. it doesn't use fsl_ifc.o).
Minimal NAND drivers are not related to minimal SPL init.

> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_spl.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_spl.c
> index d462265..e7edacf 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_spl.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_spl.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,28 @@
>  #include <asm/io.h>
>  #include <asm/fsl_ifc.h>
>  #include <linux/mtd/nand.h>
> +#ifndef CONFIG_SPL_INIT_MINIMAL
> +#include <linux/mtd/mtd.h>
> +#endif
> +
> +static void nand_load(unsigned int offs, int uboot_size, uchar *dst);
> +
> +#ifndef CONFIG_SPL_INIT_MINIMAL
> +struct mtd_info nand_info[CONFIG_SYS_MAX_NAND_DEVICE];
> +
> +int mtd_block_isbad(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int nand_read_skip_bad(struct mtd_info *nand, loff_t offset, size_t *length,
> +		size_t *actual, loff_t lim, u_char *buffer)
> +{
> +	nand_load(offset, *length, buffer);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +#endif

What does this have to do with minimal init?

-Scott