On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 17:50:31 +0530
Naga Sureshkumar Relli <naga.sureshkumar.re...@xilinx.com> wrote:
> +static int anfc_zero_len_page_write_type_exec(struct nand_chip *chip,
> + const struct nand_subop *subop)
> +{
> + const struct nand_op_instr *instr;
> + struct anfc_nand_chip *achip = to_anfc_nand(chip);
> + struct anfc_nand_controller *nfc = to_anfc(chip->controller);
> + unsigned int op_id;
> + struct anfc_op nfc_op = {};
> + struct mtd_info *mtd = nand_to_mtd(chip);
> + u32 addrcycles;
> +
> + anfc_parse_instructions(chip, subop, &nfc_op);
> + nfc->prog = PROG_PGRD;
> + instr = nfc_op.data_instr;
> + op_id = nfc_op.data_instr_idx;
> +
> + addrcycles = achip->raddr_cycles + achip->caddr_cycles;
> +
> + anfc_prepare_cmd(nfc, nfc_op.cmds[0], NAND_CMD_PAGEPROG, 1,
Why are the second opcode and the number of address cycles hardcoded.
That's simply not future-proof, and I don't want that. Also, I don't
understand why you do that, you have all the information you need in
subop and you keep guessing some parameters.
> + mtd->writesize, addrcycles);
> + anfc_setpagecoladdr(nfc, nfc_op.row, nfc_op.col);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
