Hi Aneesh, On 07/28/2011 06:18 PM, Aneesh V wrote: [snip] >> >> Oh. There I played around with the Access Size Adaptation of the GPMC - >> It is still a x16 interface - this is what the 16 refers to IMHO. But > > Ok. I have to admit that I am not a NAND expert and I do not understand > this code well. > >> for sake of simplicity I will change this back to 16bit access - I don't >> think that there is a big performance impact although I didn't measure >> it. > > No. If it's an OMAP specific optimization, I don't see a reason to > remove it. Looks like that may actually improve performance. However, > you may have to take into account of the alignment of buffer, the size > requested etc. Please have a look at the implementation in drivers/mtd > /nand/davinci_nand.c(although the implementation here seems to be for > 8-bit devices, something similar may be possible for 16-bit)
I literally just played around with that ;) I will add it in the standard version here. For my BA I will have to evaluate if it has a performance impact anyway - if it has I will send a patch later. > >> >> I cloned them because the functions in nand_base.c are static. >> >> My solution: deleted the cloned functions - use these from nand_base by >> removing the static modifier and add them to nand.h > > I hope there won't be any name-space conflict due to this. Me too. For devkit8000 there is none - BUILDALL will show. > > best regards, > Aneesh Regards Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot