From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:42:17 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] OneNAND: S5PC100 OneNAND IPL support In-Reply-To: <9c9fda240907271558g5b7275b6t611e2137474c22f4@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090721005544.GA14191@july> <20090723224229.GB28766@game.jcrosoft.org> <9c9fda240907232228r615c8a2bv600a6c47b8b5b7de@mail.gmail.com> <20090727200935.GE5259@game.jcrosoft.org> <9c9fda240907271558g5b7275b6t611e2137474c22f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090728134217.GK5259@game.jcrosoft.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 07:58 Tue 28 Jul , Kyungmin Park wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Jean-Christophe > PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > On 14:28 Fri 24 Jul ? ? , Kyungmin Park wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Jean-Christophe > >> PLAGNIOL-VILLARD 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 > >> >> --- > >> > 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.