[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/4] nand: lpc32xx: add SLC NAND controller support

[Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com>]

On 18.07.2015 02:53, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-07-18 at 02:38 +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>> Hello Scott,
>>
>> On 18.07.2015 02:12, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2015-07-18 at 01:47 +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * LPC32xx has only one SLC NAND controller, don't utilize
>>>> + * CONFIG_SYS_NAND_SELF_INIT to be able to reuse this function
>>>> + * both in SPL NAND and U-boot images.
>>>> + */
>>>> +int board_nand_init(struct nand_chip *lpc32xx_chip)
>>>> +{
>>>> +     lpc32xx_chip->cmd_ctrl  = lpc32xx_nand_cmd_ctrl;
>>>> +     lpc32xx_chip->dev_ready = lpc32xx_nand_dev_ready;
>>>> +
>>>> +     /*
>>>> +      * Hardware ECC calculation is not supported by the driver,
>>>> +      * because it requires DMA support, see LPC32x0 User Manual,
>>>> +      * note after SLC_ECC register description (UM10326, p.198)
>>>> +      */
>>>> +     lpc32xx_chip->ecc.mode  = NAND_ECC_SOFT;
>>>> +
>>>> +     /*
>>>> +      * The implementation of these functions is quite common, but
>>>> +      * they MUST be defined, because access to data register
>>>> +      * is strictly 32-bit aligned.
>>>> +      */
>>>> +     lpc32xx_chip->read_buf  = lpc32xx_read_buf;
>>>> +     lpc32xx_chip->read_byte = lpc32xx_read_byte;
>>>> +     lpc32xx_chip->write_buf = lpc32xx_write_buf;
>>>> +     lpc32xx_chip->write_byte        = lpc32xx_write_byte;
>>>> +
>>>> +     /*
>>>> +      * Use default ECC layout, but these values are predefined
>>>> +      * for both small and large page NAND flash devices.
>>>> +      */
>>>> +     lpc32xx_chip->ecc.size  = 256;
>>>> +     lpc32xx_chip->ecc.bytes = 3;
>>>> +     lpc32xx_chip->ecc.strength      = 1;
>>>
>>> Please use a space before '=', not a tab.  This doesn't even line up 
>>> right, 
>>> if that's what you were trying to do...
>>
>> Right, that's my intention. I have no objection to non-leading spaces.
> 
> It looks the same in v3.
> 

I'm so sorry for confusion. Seems that "git format-patch" produces an
old change, if it is called in the middle of "git rebase"...

--
With best wishes,
Vladimir