On 10/28/2011 01:05 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote: > Hello Scott, > > Scott Wood wrote: >> On 10/27/2011 12:23 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote: >>>>> In drivers/mtd/nand/davinci_nand.c CONFIG_SYS_NAND_4BIT_HW_ECC_OOBFIRST >>>>> is used, and there are 4bit specific functions, so this define is >>>>> also valid, just we need in drivers/mtd/nand/nand_spl_simple.c a more >>>>> common name, right? >>>> Right. Ideally, though, that would either be CONFIG_SYS_DAVINCI_... or >>>> #if defined(CONFIG_SYS_NAND_HW_ECC_OOBFIRST) && \ >>>> defined(CONFIG_SYS_NAND_HW_ECC_4BIT) >>> Hmm.. I thought you meant, this is not davinci nor 4bit specific? >>> Or do you mean to rename the CONFIG_SYS_NAND_4BIT_HW_ECC_OOBFIRST >>> define in drivers/mtd/nand/davinci_nand.c? >> >> I just mean that "4bit" and "oobfirst" are independent things, so I'd >> rather not have something that combines the two as part of the >> configuration of the general NAND interface in the absence of a >> requirement to enumerate all possibilities. OTOH, the structure of >> driver's private config can be whatever makes the most sense for that >> driver, but should be named in a way that it's obviously driver-specific. > > So my v4 version of this patch is ok? see: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/121295/
Yes, the patch looks good -- ACK sent. > Maybe we should rename the CONFIG_SYS_NAND_4BIT_HW_ECC_OOBFIRST > in drivers/mtd/nand/davinci_nand.c to CONFIG_SYS_DAVINCI_NAND_HW_4BIT > in a seperate patch? Sure, that'd be good. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot