[U-Boot] [PATCH] OneNAND: S5PC100 OneNAND IPL support

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>]

On 07:58 Tue 28 Jul     , Kyungmin Park wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Jean-Christophe
> PLAGNIOL-VILLARD<plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote:
> > On 14:28 Fri 24 Jul ? ? , Kyungmin Park wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Jean-Christophe
> >> PLAGNIOL-VILLARD<plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote:
> >> > On 09:55 Tue 21 Jul ? ? , Kyungmin Park wrote:
> >> >> S5PC100 has own OneNAND controller and has different interface.
> >> >> OneNAND IPL use it to S5PC100 board.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
> >> >> ---
> >> > is there any better than put soc specific code in generic implementatioN
> >> >
> >>
> >> I hope so. only s3c64xx series and s5pc100 use own OneNAND controller.
> >> I also don't understand why need these controller. The OneNAND has its
> >> own controller at chips already.
> > I known
> > so what do you propose?
> >
> 
> just commit the patch I sent. It's difficult to remove the ifdef since
> size limitation.
I understand your problem of size but is there any otherway to do ti without
the onenand soc controler ?

I'll prefer we find a way to not put soc specific code in the generic code
maybe we can crete a header which will be soc specific or a generic that we
will include depending on the soc

Best Regards,
J.