public inbox for u-boot@lists.denx.de
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Prabhakar Kushwaha <prabhakar@freescale.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH][v2] driver/nand: Update SRAM initialize logic for IFC.
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:11:16 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <539BB64C.3030707@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1402692045.6603.594.camel@snotra.buserror.net>

Hi Scott,


On 6/14/2014 2:10 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 12:14 +0530, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote:
>> IFC controller v1.1.0 requires internal SRAM initialize by reading
>> NAND flash. Higher controller versions have provided "SRAM init" bit in
>> NCFGR register space.
>>
>> update SRAM initialize logic to reflect the same.
>>
>> Also print error message in case of Page read error.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Prabhakar Kushwaha <prabhakar@freescale.com>
>> ---
>> Changes for v2:
>> 	- Updated error handling
>>
>>   drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_nand.c |   35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>   include/fsl_ifc.h               |    2 ++
>>   2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_nand.c
>> index 27f5177..280e14e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_nand.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_nand.c
>> @@ -806,12 +806,30 @@ static void fsl_ifc_select_chip(struct mtd_info *mtd, int chip)
>>   {
>>   }
>>   
>> -static void fsl_ifc_sram_init(void)
>> +static int fsl_ifc_sram_init(uint32_t ver)
>>   {
>>   	struct fsl_ifc *ifc = ifc_ctrl->regs;
>>   	uint32_t cs = 0, csor = 0, csor_8k = 0, csor_ext = 0;
>> +	uint32_t ncfgr = 0;
>>   	long long end_tick;
>>   
>> +	if (ver > FSL_IFC_V1_1_0) {
> It would be better to check that ver >= the first version that supports
> this, rather than > the last version that doesn't.

here only 2 type of code is present i.e.  (ver == FSL_IFC_V1_1_0) and 
(ver > FSL_IFC_V1_1_0).
if i put  (ver == FSL_IFC_V1_1_0) earlier a lots of code go in "if ". I 
am trying to avoid it to make code more cleaner.

> How much benefit is there in doing this versus continuing with the
> current code?

Existing code is perfect for 8KB internal SRAM as we are reading 8KB Page.
As IFC 2.0 has 16KB SRAM, either I have to read 16KB page or I have to 
read 2 8KB page to fill complete SRAM.

in future, there may be possibility of > 16KB internal SRAM. So I 
decided to use SRAM init bit.

> Should we determine the IFC version at compile time instead, so that we
> don't need to carry around both versions of the code in the binary?
>

Compile time option can be used. But in Linux driver it may not be 
possible.
I am trying to have same code base in u-boot and Linux for maintainability.

--prabhakar

      reply	other threads:[~2014-06-14  2:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-06-12  6:44 [U-Boot] [PATCH][v2] driver/nand: Update SRAM initialize logic for IFC Prabhakar Kushwaha
2014-06-13 20:40 ` Scott Wood
2014-06-14  2:41   ` Prabhakar Kushwaha [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=539BB64C.3030707@freescale.com \
    --to=prabhakar@freescale.com \
    --cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox