On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:09:05 +0800
Jianxin Pan <jianxin....@amlogic.com> wrote:
> +static int meson_nfc_exec_op(struct nand_chip *chip,
> + const struct nand_operation *op, bool check_only)
> +{
> + struct mtd_info *mtd = nand_to_mtd(chip);
> + struct meson_nfc *nfc = nand_get_controller_data(chip);
> + const struct nand_op_instr *instr = NULL;
> + int ret = 0, cmd;
> + unsigned int op_id;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (op_id = 0; op_id < op->ninstrs; op_id++) {
> + instr = &op->instrs[op_id];
> + switch (instr->type) {
> + case NAND_OP_CMD_INSTR:
> + if (instr->ctx.cmd.opcode == NAND_CMD_STATUS)
> + meson_nfc_cmd_idle(nfc, nfc->timing.twb);
Hm, I don't want drivers to base their decisions on the opcode value.
There's a ->delay_ns field in the instruction object, can't you use
that one instead? Also, I don't understand why this is only needed for
the STATUS command. It should normally be applied to all instructions.
> + cmd = nfc->param.chip_select | NFC_CMD_CLE;
> + cmd |= instr->ctx.cmd.opcode & 0xff;
> + writel(cmd, nfc->reg_base + NFC_REG_CMD);
> + if (instr->ctx.cmd.opcode == NAND_CMD_STATUS)
> + meson_nfc_cmd_idle(nfc, nfc->timing.twhr);
> + break;
> +
> + case NAND_OP_ADDR_INSTR:
> + for (i = 0; i < instr->ctx.addr.naddrs; i++) {
> + cmd = nfc->param.chip_select | NFC_CMD_ALE;
> + cmd |= instr->ctx.addr.addrs[i] & 0xff;
> + writel(cmd, nfc->reg_base + NFC_REG_CMD);
> + }
> + break;
> +
> + case NAND_OP_DATA_IN_INSTR:
> + meson_nfc_read_buf(mtd, instr->ctx.data.buf.in,
> + instr->ctx.data.len);
> + break;
> +
> + case NAND_OP_DATA_OUT_INSTR:
> + meson_nfc_write_buf(mtd, instr->ctx.data.buf.out,
> + instr->ctx.data.len);
> + break;
> +
> + case NAND_OP_WAITRDY_INSTR:
> + meson_nfc_queue_rb(nfc, instr->ctx.waitrdy.timeout_ms);
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + return ret;
> +}
