[U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/3] nand_spl_simple: Add a simple flash read function

[Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>]

On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 23:40 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Monday, January 04, 2016 at 10:45:08 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 22:17 +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:38:23PM +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:23:36PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 16:54 +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> > > > > > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > To support UBI in SPL we need a simple flash read function. Add
> one
> > > > > > to nand_spl_simple and keep it as simple as it goes.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Where is your signoff?
> > > > 
> > > > I'm only messenger and have nothing to do with this part of patch. The
> > > > other
> > > > part which I touched has my signoff.
> > > > 
> > > > > Did Thomas really write this patch for U-Boot (if so, why isn't he
> on
> > > > > CC?) or
> > > > > is it taken from some other project?
> > > > 
> > > > Ha! It is my mailer which broke Cc. Thomas was on Cc list and still is
> > > > in my
> > > > sent-mail folder. Also apologize to Marek, let's see how Cc will end
> > > > this time.
> > > > And yes, patch was written for U-Boot:
> > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/367305/
> > > 
> > > Well, seems to be mailman configuration:
> > > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2006-May/051194.html
> > > so those who received post via mailman are seeing striped Cc line.
> Thanks
> > > to Nathan Lynch for pointing it out.
> > > Full Cc list:
> > > Cc: Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>
> > > Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
> > > Cc: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > > Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
> > > Cc: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
> > 
> > Oh right, I forgot about that mailman bug.
> > 
> > > > > +int nand_spl_read_flash(u32 pnum, u32 offset, u32 len, void *dest)
> > > > > 
> > > > > This name is too generic and doesn't suggest what's different
> > > > > compared to
> > > > > nand_spl_load_image (they both read data from flash into a buffer).
> > > > > 
> > > > > How about nand_spl_read_block()?
> > > > 
> > > > ok.
> > > 
> > > Thinking about it more, I'd rather see nand_spl_read_peb(int peb, ...
> > > but that is not consistent with other nand reading functions.
> > 
> > "peb" is cryptic, and what sort of non-physical erase block does the core
> > NAND code deal with that warrants distinction?
> 
> PEB is the standard UBI term, no problem there ...

This isn't UBI code (hence the reference to "core NAND code"), even if it's
mainly meant to support UBI.

-Scott