Re: [PATCH v10 1/5] mtd: nand: vf610_nfc: Freescale NFC for VF610, MPC5125 and others
On 2015-08-27 09:34, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:02:31PM -0700, Stefan Agner wrote:
>> On 2015-08-25 13:16, Brian Norris wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:27:26AM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote:
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c
>> >> new file mode 100644
>> >> index 000..5c8dfe8
>> >> --- /dev/null
>> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c
>> >> @@ -0,0 +1,645 @@
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> +/*
>> >> + * This function supports Vybrid only (MPC5125 would have full RB and
>> >> four CS)
>> >> + */
>> >> +static void vf610_nfc_select_chip(struct mtd_info *mtd, int chip)
>> >> +{
>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SOC_VF610
>> >
>> > Why the #ifdef? I don't see anything compile-time specific to SOC_VF610.
>> >
>> > If this is trying to handle the comment above ("This function supports
>> > Vybrid only (MPC5125 would have full RB and four CS)") then that's the
>> > wrong way of doing it, as you need to support multiplatform kernels.
>> > You'll need to have a way to differentiate the different platform
>> > support at runtime, not compile time.
>>
>> Yes it is trying to handle the comment above. Well, the other two
>> platforms I am aware of are also different architectures... (PowerPC and
>> ColdFire). I think we won't have a multi-architecture kernel anytime
>> soon,
>
> Ha, right. Sorry, I don't really know this particular IP.
>
>> hence I think removing the code at compile time is the right thing
>> todo.
>
> I don't believe that conclusion follows though.
>
>> However, probably CONFIG_SOC_VF610 is the wrong symbol then, I could
>> just use CONFIG_ARM and add a comment that this might be different on
>> another other ARM SoC than VF610.
>>
>> Just checked CodingStyle, and I see that IS_ENABLED is the preferred way
>> for conditional compiling.
>>
>> So my suggestion:
>>
>> static void vf610_nfc_select_chip(struct mtd_info *mtd, int chip)
>> {
>> struct vf610_nfc *nfc = mtd_to_nfc(mtd);
>> u32 tmp = vf610_nfc_read(nfc, NFC_ROW_ADDR);
>>
>> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM))
>> return;
>>
>> /*
>> * This code is only tested on the ARM platform VF610
>> * PowerPC based MPC5125 would have full RB and four CS
>> */
>>
>>
>> With that the compiler should be able to remove this (currently) ARM
>> VF610 specific code on the other supported architectures...
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> The code structure isn't bad, and yes, IS_ENABLED() would be preferable,
> as it removes some of the problems with #ifdef, but I still don't think
> the processor architecture has much to do with the version of the IP.
Well yes, the processor architecture has probably not much to do with
the IP version.
However, that particular problem, the wiring up of the CS/RB signals, is
probably more SoC (as a whole) specific, and how that is done might have
some relation which architecture is in use...
I do not have a strong opinion on this, so we might as well go with the
run-time distinction using compatible. If there are different IP
variants within one architecture, we anyway would need to do that.
> The canonical way of distiguishing per-IP revisions is to key on the
> compatible property. So you'd have some kind of enum, which would
> currently only have an entry for VF610. i.e.:
>
> /* MPC5125 not yet supported */
> if (nfc->revision != NAND_VFC610)
> return;
>
Ok, just checked, I can use the data field of the of table to assign
specific data to a compatible string, similar to how pxa3xx_nand.c does
it.
--
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v10 1/5] mtd: nand: vf610_nfc: Freescale NFC for VF610, MPC5125 and others
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:10:05PM -0700, Stefan Agner wrote:
> On 2015-08-25 13:34, Brian Norris wrote:
> > One more thing...
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:27:26AM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote:
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,645 @@
> > ...
> >> +struct vf610_nfc {
> >> + struct mtd_info mtd;
> >> + struct nand_chip chip;
> >> + struct device *dev;
> >> + void __iomem *regs;
> >> + struct completion cmd_done;
> >> + uint buf_offset;
> >> + int page_sz;
> >
> > AFAICT (even with the 2nd patch), you never really use this field. You
> > just set it/increment it, but don't use it for anything. Kill it?
>
> It is used in the write path, I think I meant to use it for subpage
> writes, when I thought it would just mean to transfer only parts of the
> page to the controller.
Ah, you're right. Sorry, I missed that. I got mixed up seeing most of
your uses of 'page_sz' were for a local variable of the same name, not
this field.
> However, as the subpage discussion basically concluded in not using it
> for now on this controller, we can as well transfer the complete page
> (page_sz). Or is there another case in which vf610_nfc_write_buf could
> be called with less than page_sz?
I'll leave that up to you. I'm perfectly fine leaving it in, now that I
see its proper use. Just in case things change in the future, I think it
does help to clarify the flow of information a little. Although, I might
recommend a change in naming, since it could get confused with the
actual page size -- which is normally constant -- whereas this field
changes dynamically depending on the command-in-flight.
Perhaps the struct could have 'write_len' (to help represent an action)
and the local variable in vf610_nfc_command() could be 'tfr_len' (to
distinguish how it isn't necessarily identical to 'write_len')? Just
throwing (likely bad) ideas out there.
Regards,
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v10 1/5] mtd: nand: vf610_nfc: Freescale NFC for VF610, MPC5125 and others
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:02:31PM -0700, Stefan Agner wrote:
> On 2015-08-25 13:16, Brian Norris wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:27:26AM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000..5c8dfe8
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,645 @@
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> +/*
> >> + * This function supports Vybrid only (MPC5125 would have full RB and
> >> four CS)
> >> + */
> >> +static void vf610_nfc_select_chip(struct mtd_info *mtd, int chip)
> >> +{
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SOC_VF610
> >
> > Why the #ifdef? I don't see anything compile-time specific to SOC_VF610.
> >
> > If this is trying to handle the comment above ("This function supports
> > Vybrid only (MPC5125 would have full RB and four CS)") then that's the
> > wrong way of doing it, as you need to support multiplatform kernels.
> > You'll need to have a way to differentiate the different platform
> > support at runtime, not compile time.
>
> Yes it is trying to handle the comment above. Well, the other two
> platforms I am aware of are also different architectures... (PowerPC and
> ColdFire). I think we won't have a multi-architecture kernel anytime
> soon,
Ha, right. Sorry, I don't really know this particular IP.
> hence I think removing the code at compile time is the right thing
> todo.
I don't believe that conclusion follows though.
> However, probably CONFIG_SOC_VF610 is the wrong symbol then, I could
> just use CONFIG_ARM and add a comment that this might be different on
> another other ARM SoC than VF610.
>
> Just checked CodingStyle, and I see that IS_ENABLED is the preferred way
> for conditional compiling.
>
> So my suggestion:
>
> static void vf610_nfc_select_chip(struct mtd_info *mtd, int chip)
> {
> struct vf610_nfc *nfc = mtd_to_nfc(mtd);
> u32 tmp = vf610_nfc_read(nfc, NFC_ROW_ADDR);
>
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM))
> return;
>
> /*
>* This code is only tested on the ARM platform VF610
>* PowerPC based MPC5125 would have full RB and four CS
>*/
>
>
> With that the compiler should be able to remove this (currently) ARM
> VF610 specific code on the other supported architectures...
>
> What do you think?
The code structure isn't bad, and yes, IS_ENABLED() would be preferable,
as it removes some of the problems with #ifdef, but I still don't think
the processor architecture has much to do with the version of the IP.
The canonical way of distiguishing per-IP revisions is to key on the
compatible property. So you'd have some kind of enum, which would
currently only have an entry for VF610. i.e.:
/* MPC5125 not yet supported */
if (nfc->revision != NAND_VFC610)
return;
> >> + struct vf610_nfc *nfc = mtd_to_nfc(mtd);
> >> + u32 tmp = vf610_nfc_read(nfc, NFC_ROW_ADDR);
> >> +
> >> + tmp &= ~(ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_RB_MASK | ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_MASK);
> >> + tmp |= 1 << ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_RB_SHIFT;
> >> +
> >> + if (chip == 0)
> >> + tmp |= 1 << ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_SHIFT;
> >> + else if (chip == 1)
> >> + tmp |= 2 << ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_SHIFT;
> >
> > else ... ?
> >
> > Maybe you can write this as a formulaic pattern (e.g.:
> >
> > tmp |= (chip + 1) << ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_SHIFT;
> >
> > ) and just do the "max # of chips" checks on a per-platform basis in the
> > probe(). Then I'm guessing this same function can apply to both
> > platforms. (I'm not looking at HW datasheets for this, BTW, just
> > guessing based on the context here.)
>
> It seems that MCP5125 is different than VF610. MCP5125 has 4 chip
> selects and 4 R/B signals, whereas VF610 has only 2 chip selects and
> just 1 R/B signals...
OK I don't presume to know what the different IP versions look like. And
if you just note they are unsupported/untested, you're fine.
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v10 1/5] mtd: nand: vf610_nfc: Freescale NFC for VF610, MPC5125 and others
On 2015-08-25 13:34, Brian Norris wrote:
> One more thing...
>
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:27:26AM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote:
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,645 @@
> ...
>> +struct vf610_nfc {
>> +struct mtd_info mtd;
>> +struct nand_chip chip;
>> +struct device *dev;
>> +void __iomem *regs;
>> +struct completion cmd_done;
>> +uint buf_offset;
>> +int page_sz;
>
> AFAICT (even with the 2nd patch), you never really use this field. You
> just set it/increment it, but don't use it for anything. Kill it?
It is used in the write path, I think I meant to use it for subpage
writes, when I thought it would just mean to transfer only parts of the
page to the controller.
However, as the subpage discussion basically concluded in not using it
for now on this controller, we can as well transfer the complete page
(page_sz). Or is there another case in which vf610_nfc_write_buf could
be called with less than page_sz?
--
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v10 1/5] mtd: nand: vf610_nfc: Freescale NFC for VF610, MPC5125 and others
On 2015-08-25 13:16, Brian Norris wrote:
> A few more comments.
>
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:27:26AM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000..5c8dfe8
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,645 @@
>
> ...
>
>> +/*
>> + * This function supports Vybrid only (MPC5125 would have full RB and four
>> CS)
>> + */
>> +static void vf610_nfc_select_chip(struct mtd_info *mtd, int chip)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SOC_VF610
>
> Why the #ifdef? I don't see anything compile-time specific to SOC_VF610.
>
> If this is trying to handle the comment above ("This function supports
> Vybrid only (MPC5125 would have full RB and four CS)") then that's the
> wrong way of doing it, as you need to support multiplatform kernels.
> You'll need to have a way to differentiate the different platform
> support at runtime, not compile time.
Yes it is trying to handle the comment above. Well, the other two
platforms I am aware of are also different architectures... (PowerPC and
ColdFire). I think we won't have a multi-architecture kernel anytime
soon, hence I think removing the code at compile time is the right thing
todo.
However, probably CONFIG_SOC_VF610 is the wrong symbol then, I could
just use CONFIG_ARM and add a comment that this might be different on
another other ARM SoC than VF610.
Just checked CodingStyle, and I see that IS_ENABLED is the preferred way
for conditional compiling.
So my suggestion:
static void vf610_nfc_select_chip(struct mtd_info *mtd, int chip)
{
struct vf610_nfc *nfc = mtd_to_nfc(mtd);
u32 tmp = vf610_nfc_read(nfc, NFC_ROW_ADDR);
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM))
return;
/*
* This code is only tested on the ARM platform VF610
* PowerPC based MPC5125 would have full RB and four CS
*/
With that the compiler should be able to remove this (currently) ARM
VF610 specific code on the other supported architectures...
What do you think?
>
>> +struct vf610_nfc *nfc = mtd_to_nfc(mtd);
>> +u32 tmp = vf610_nfc_read(nfc, NFC_ROW_ADDR);
>> +
>> +tmp &= ~(ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_RB_MASK | ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_MASK);
>> +tmp |= 1 << ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_RB_SHIFT;
>> +
>> +if (chip == 0)
>> +tmp |= 1 << ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_SHIFT;
>> +else if (chip == 1)
>> +tmp |= 2 << ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_SHIFT;
>
> else ... ?
>
> Maybe you can write this as a formulaic pattern (e.g.:
>
> tmp |= (chip + 1) << ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_SHIFT;
>
> ) and just do the "max # of chips" checks on a per-platform basis in the
> probe(). Then I'm guessing this same function can apply to both
> platforms. (I'm not looking at HW datasheets for this, BTW, just
> guessing based on the context here.)
It seems that MCP5125 is different than VF610. MCP5125 has 4 chip
selects and 4 R/B signals, whereas VF610 has only 2 chip selects and
just 1 R/B signals...
> But wait...I see that you call nand_scan_ident() with a max of 1 chip.
> So you won't ever see the chip > 0 case, right?
>
> So does this driver support multiple flash attached or not? Looks like
> you're assuming you'll only be using chip-select 0. (This is fine for
> now, but at least your code should acknowledge this. Perhaps a comment
> at the top under "limitations.")
>
Ok, will add that information under limitations.
>> +
>> +vf610_nfc_write(nfc, NFC_ROW_ADDR, tmp);
>> +#endif
>> +}
>
> ...
>
>> +static int vf610_nfc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>
> ...
>
>> +/* first scan to find the device and get the page size */
>> +if (nand_scan_ident(mtd, 1, NULL)) {
>> +err = -ENXIO;
>> +goto error;
>> +}
--
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v10 1/5] mtd: nand: vf610_nfc: Freescale NFC for VF610, MPC5125 and others
One more thing...
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:27:26AM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,645 @@
...
> +struct vf610_nfc {
> + struct mtd_info mtd;
> + struct nand_chip chip;
> + struct device *dev;
> + void __iomem *regs;
> + struct completion cmd_done;
> + uint buf_offset;
> + int page_sz;
AFAICT (even with the 2nd patch), you never really use this field. You
just set it/increment it, but don't use it for anything. Kill it?
> + /* Status and ID are in alternate locations. */
> + int alt_buf;
> +#define ALT_BUF_ID 1
> +#define ALT_BUF_STAT 2
> +#define ALT_BUF_ONFI 3
> + struct clk *clk;
> +};
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v10 1/5] mtd: nand: vf610_nfc: Freescale NFC for VF610, MPC5125 and others
A few more comments.
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:27:26AM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..5c8dfe8
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,645 @@
...
> +/*
> + * This function supports Vybrid only (MPC5125 would have full RB and four
> CS)
> + */
> +static void vf610_nfc_select_chip(struct mtd_info *mtd, int chip)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SOC_VF610
Why the #ifdef? I don't see anything compile-time specific to SOC_VF610.
If this is trying to handle the comment above ("This function supports
Vybrid only (MPC5125 would have full RB and four CS)") then that's the
wrong way of doing it, as you need to support multiplatform kernels.
You'll need to have a way to differentiate the different platform
support at runtime, not compile time.
> + struct vf610_nfc *nfc = mtd_to_nfc(mtd);
> + u32 tmp = vf610_nfc_read(nfc, NFC_ROW_ADDR);
> +
> + tmp &= ~(ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_RB_MASK | ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_MASK);
> + tmp |= 1 << ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_RB_SHIFT;
> +
> + if (chip == 0)
> + tmp |= 1 << ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_SHIFT;
> + else if (chip == 1)
> + tmp |= 2 << ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_SHIFT;
else ... ?
Maybe you can write this as a formulaic pattern (e.g.:
tmp |= (chip + 1) << ROW_ADDR_CHIP_SEL_SHIFT;
) and just do the "max # of chips" checks on a per-platform basis in the
probe(). Then I'm guessing this same function can apply to both
platforms. (I'm not looking at HW datasheets for this, BTW, just
guessing based on the context here.)
But wait...I see that you call nand_scan_ident() with a max of 1 chip.
So you won't ever see the chip > 0 case, right?
So does this driver support multiple flash attached or not? Looks like
you're assuming you'll only be using chip-select 0. (This is fine for
now, but at least your code should acknowledge this. Perhaps a comment
at the top under "limitations.")
> +
> + vf610_nfc_write(nfc, NFC_ROW_ADDR, tmp);
> +#endif
> +}
...
> +static int vf610_nfc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
...
> + /* first scan to find the device and get the page size */
> + if (nand_scan_ident(mtd, 1, NULL)) {
> + err = -ENXIO;
> + goto error;
> + }
...
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH v10 1/5] mtd: nand: vf610_nfc: Freescale NFC for VF610, MPC5125 and others
This driver supports Freescale NFC (NAND flash controller) found on Vybrid (VF610), MPC5125, MCF54418 and Kinetis K70. The driver has been tested on 8-bit and 16-bit NAND interface and supports ONFI parameter page reading. Limitations: - DMA and pipelining not used - Pages larger than 2k are not supported - No hardware ECC The driver has only been tested on Vybrid SoC VF610 and VF500. Some paths have been hand-optimized and evaluated by measurements made using mtd_speedtest.ko on a 100MB MTD partition. Colibri VF50 eb write % eb read % page write % page read % rel/opt 5175 115374560 11039 opt 5164 -0.21 11420 -1.01 4737 +3.88 10918 -1.10 none5113 -1.20 11352 -1.60 4490 -1.54 10865 -1.58 Colibri VF61 eb write % eb read % page write % page read % rel/opt 5766 130965459 12846 opt 5883 +2.03 13064 -0.24 5561 +1.87 12802 -0.34 none5701 -1.13 12980 -0.89 5488 +0.53 12735 -0.86 rel = using readl_relaxed/writel_relaxed in optimized paths opt = hand-optimized by combining multiple accesses into one read/write The measurements have not been statistically verfied, hence use them with care. The author came to the conclusion that using the relaxed variants of readl/writel are not worth the additional code. Signed-off-by: Bill Pringlemeir Tested-by: Albert ARIBAUD Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner --- MAINTAINERS | 6 + drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig | 9 + drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile| 1 + drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c | 645 +++ 4 files changed, 661 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 9567329..59975c7 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -10835,6 +10835,12 @@ S: Maintained F: Documentation/fb/uvesafb.txt F: drivers/video/fbdev/uvesafb.* +VF610 NAND DRIVER +M: Stefan Agner +L: linux-...@lists.infradead.org +S: Supported +F: drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c + VFAT/FAT/MSDOS FILESYSTEM M: OGAWA Hirofumi S: Maintained diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig b/drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig index 5b2806a..8550b14 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig @@ -463,6 +463,15 @@ config MTD_NAND_MPC5121_NFC This enables the driver for the NAND flash controller on the MPC5121 SoC. +config MTD_NAND_VF610_NFC + tristate "Support for Freescale NFC for VF610/MPC5125" + depends on (SOC_VF610 || COMPILE_TEST) + help + Enables support for NAND Flash Controller on some Freescale + processors like the VF610, MPC5125, MCF54418 or Kinetis K70. + The driver supports a maximum 2k page size. The driver + currently does not support hardware ECC. + config MTD_NAND_MXC tristate "MXC NAND support" depends on ARCH_MXC diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile index 1f897ec..a490af8 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MTD_NAND_SOCRATES) += socrates_nand.o obj-$(CONFIG_MTD_NAND_TXX9NDFMC) += txx9ndfmc.o obj-$(CONFIG_MTD_NAND_NUC900) += nuc900_nand.o obj-$(CONFIG_MTD_NAND_MPC5121_NFC) += mpc5121_nfc.o +obj-$(CONFIG_MTD_NAND_VF610_NFC) += vf610_nfc.o obj-$(CONFIG_MTD_NAND_RICOH) += r852.o obj-$(CONFIG_MTD_NAND_JZ4740) += jz4740_nand.o obj-$(CONFIG_MTD_NAND_GPMI_NAND) += gpmi-nand/ diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c new file mode 100644 index 000..5c8dfe8 --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c @@ -0,0 +1,645 @@ +/* + * Copyright 2009-2015 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. and others + * + * Description: MPC5125, VF610, MCF54418 and Kinetis K70 Nand driver. + * Jason ported to M54418TWR and MVFA5 (VF610). + * Authors: Stefan Agner + * Bill Pringlemeir + * Shaohui Xie + * Jason Jin + * + * Based on original driver mpc5121_nfc.c. + * + * This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it + * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or + * (at your option) any later version. + * + * Limitations: + * - Untested on MPC5125 and M54418. + * - DMA not used. + * - 2K pages or less. + */ + +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include + +#defineDRV_NAME"vf610_nfc" + +/* Register Offsets */ +#define NFC_FLASH_CMD1 0x3F00 +#define NFC_FLASH_CMD2 0x3F04 +#define NFC_COL_ADDR 0x3F08 +#define NFC_ROW_ADDR 0x3
