Hi Peter, On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:20:19 +0800 Peter Pan <peterpans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ezequiel, > > Sorry for reply your mail late. And thaks a lot for reviewing it. > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Ezequiel Garcia > <ezequ...@vanguardiasur.com.ar> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On 13 March 2016 at 23:47, Peter Pan <peterpans...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sorry for send the v3 out late. I went through a busy time in the past > >> two month. > >> > >> 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). > >> > >> Below is mtd folder structure we want: > >> drivers/mtd/nand/<all-nand-core-code> > >> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/<raw-nand-controller-drivers> > >> drivers/mtd/nand/spi/<spi-nand-code> > >> drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/<onenand-code> > >> drivers/mtd/nand/chips/<manufacturer-spcific-code> > >> > > > > You mention this structure, but nothing in the current patchset is actually > > enforcing it. This is more the future direction we are going. > > Yes, this is what we want. > > > >> Most of the patch is borrowed from Brian Norris > >> <computersforpe...@gmail.com>. > >> http://git.infradead.org/users/norris/linux-mtd.git/shortlog/refs/heads/nand-bbt > >> I decided the authorship of each patch by contribution. Please let me know > >> if > >> there is something unproper. > >> Based on Brian's suggestion and Boris's comments, I make 11 independent > >> patches. Previous patch is http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/492066/ > >> After discussion with Boris and Ezequiel, I realized above structure is > >> better, > >> so I drop the patch to move nand_bbt.c to mtd folder. > >> > > > > I have reviewed this patchset, and it looks mostly good to me. I can > > spot trivial style comments, or comments related to the commit logs, or the > > way commits are splitted. > > > > Boris will probably have more insightful comments to make. > > > > However, before starting my silly bikeshedding I'd like to know if we all > > agree with the patchset's overall scheme. > > > > It would be good to finally move forward with this, to take mt29f out > > of staging and also support other SPI NAND vendors. > > Yes. We plan to move mt29f_spi_nand out from staging. But because > mt29f_spi_nand > is under raw/parallel NAND framework, it mismatch the stucture we > want. Rewite it > under SPI NAND framework may be a better choice, right? Actually I'm > working on this > now. Yes, that's what I expect. And since this SPI NAND framework does not exist yet, I think it's a good time to create the generic nand_device struct (we'll switch other NAND based devices to this structure afterwards). Thanks, Boris -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com