On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:31:06 +0100 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Hi Peter, > > On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:18:39 +0800 > 潘栋 <peterpans...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Boris and Ezequiel, > > > > 2015-12-29 23:11 GMT+08:00 Boris Brezillon > > <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com>: > > > On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:07:50 -0300 > > > Ezequiel Garcia <ezequ...@vanguardiasur.com.ar> wrote: > > > > > >> On 29 December 2015 at 06:35, Boris Brezillon > > >> <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com> wrote: > > >> > Hi, > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 17:42:50 -0300 > > >> > Ezequiel Garcia <ezequ...@vanguardiasur.com.ar> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> This is looking a lot better, thanks for the good work! > > >> >> > > >> >> On 15 December 2015 at 02:59, Peter Pan <peterpans...@gmail.com> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > Currently nand_bbt.c is tied with struct nand_chip, and it makes > > >> >> > other > > >> >> > NAND family chips hard to use nand_bbt.c. Maybe it's the reason why > > >> >> > onenand has own bbt(onenand_bbt.c). > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Separate struct nand_chip from BBT code can make current BBT > > >> >> > shareable. > > >> >> > We create struct nand_bbt to take place of nand_chip in nand_bbt.c. > > >> >> > Struct nand_bbt contains all the information BBT needed from > > >> >> > outside and > > >> >> > it should be embedded into NAND family chip struct (such as struct > > >> >> > nand_chip). > > >> >> > NAND family driver should allocate, initialize and free struct > > >> >> > nand_bbt. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Below is mtd folder structure we want: > > >> >> > mtd > > >> >> > ├── Kconfig > > >> >> > ├── Makefile > > >> >> > ├── ... > > >> >> > ├── nand_bbt.c > > >> >> > > >> >> Hm.. I'm not sure about having nand_bbt.c in drivers/mtd. > > >> >> What's wrong with drivers/mtd/nand ? > > >> > > > >> > I haven't reviewed the series yet, but I agree. If the BBT code is only > > >> > meant to be used on NAND based devices, it should probably stay in > > >> > drivers/mtd/nand. > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> In fact, I was thinking we could go further and clean up the > > >> >> directories a bit > > >> >> by separating core code, from controllers code, from SPI NAND code: > > >> >> > > >> >> drivers/mtd/nand/ > > >> >> drivers/mtd/nand/controllers > > >> >> drivers/mtd/nand/spi > > >> >> > > >> >> Makes any sense? > > >> > > > >> > Actually I had the secret plan of moving all (raw) NAND controller > > >> > drivers into the drivers/mtd/nand/controllers directory, though this > > >> > was for a different reason: I'd like to create another directory for > > >> > manufacturer specific code in order to support some advanced features > > >> > on NANDs that do not implement (or only partially implement) the ONFI > > >> > standard. > > >> > > > >> > The separation you're talking about here is more related to the > > >> > interface used to communicate with the NAND chip. > > >> > > > >> > How about using the following hierarchy? > > >> > > > >> > drivers/mtd/nand/<nand-core-code> > > >> > drivers/mtd/nand/interfaces/raw/<raw-nand-core-code> > > >> > drivers/mtd/nand/interfaces/raw/controllers/<raw-nand-controller-drivers> > > >> > drivers/mtd/nand/interfaces/spi/<spi-nand-code> > > >> > drivers/mtd/nand/interfaces/onenand/<onenand-code> > > >> > drivers/mtd/nand/chips/<manufacturer-spcific-code> > > >> > > > >> > What do you think? > > >> > > > >> > > >> I believe we are bikeshedding here, but what the heck. > > >> > > >> That seems too involved. A simpler hierarchy could be clear enough, > > >> and seems to follow what other subsystems do: > > >> > > >> drivers/mtd/nand/<all-nand-core-code> > > >> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/<raw-nand-controller-drivers> > > > > > > And probably some common logic in there too. > > > > > >> drivers/mtd/nand/spi/<spi-nand-code> > > >> drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/<onenand-code> > > >> drivers/mtd/nand/chips/<manufacturer-spcific-code> > > >> > > > > > > I'm fine with this one too ;-). > > > > I'm fine with this structure too. drivers/mtd/nand folder becomes top > > folder for > > all NAND based devices. Because (raw)NAND, SPI-NAND and ONENAND have > > different command set and feature, each has its own core - nand_base.c > > spi-nand-base.c > > and onenand_base.c. So maybe it'll take a lot effort to abstract a > > all-nand-core-code > > (of course BBT should be one of them). What's your opinion? > > Absolutely, that was the idea: move everything into the > drivers/mtd/nand directory (with the structure described above), keep > some specific logic for each interface type, and see if we can factor > out some common code (I noticed that SPI NAND devices have a parameter > page which looks similar to the one exposed by ONFI compliant devices, > except this parameter page is retrieved using a different command, the > same goes for the ->{set,get}_features() functions). > But let's focus on the nand_bbt code for now. > > > > > Also, please review the BBT patch if you have time. I think it's > > helpful on the new NAND code > > hierarchy. > > I'll try to review it this week. I'm a bit late, but I think I've reviewed most of it now. -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/