From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:51:33 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/5] NAND: Allow per-buffer allocation
In-Reply-To: <4E7AE6A1.4040008@denx.de>
References: <1315800250-19761-1-git-send-email-marek.vasut@gmail.com>
	<20110921201635.3FD24140796D@gemini.denx.de>
	<4E7AE6A1.4040008@denx.de>
Message-ID: <201109221051.33950.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Thursday, September 22, 2011 09:41:21 AM Stefano Babic wrote:
> On 09/21/2011 10:16 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Dear Stefano & Marek,
> > 
> > can you please provide the requested information?
> 
> Hi Scott,
> 
> > In message <4E7A4145.30501@freescale.com> Scott Wood wrote:
> >>> In message <4E7A320D.1030002@freescale.com> you wrote:
> >>>> Is this hardware going to be supported in Linux?  It would be nice if
> >>>> we could keep this code in sync.
> >>> 
> >>> Stefano has submitted patches for the iMX28 based M28 / M28EVK board,
> >>> so yes, this hardware going to be supported in mainline Linux, too.
> >> 
> >> How do the Linux iMX28 patches deal with NAND_OWN_BUFFERS?
> >> 
> >> I'd like to see this change be submitted to Linux first, or else have an
> >> explanation of why a divergence for U-Boot is warranted.
> 
> I tested NAND with the gpmi-nand patches sent to linux-arm by Huang Shije:
> 
> 	http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg139526.html
> 
> However, I have not seen the option NAND_OWN_BUFFERS in his patches.
> 
> Best regards,
> Stefano

Like I said, this patch is not needed anymore. It's just a convenience measure 
now. I don't need to for mx28.