On 01/16/2012 10:51 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > On 01/15/2012 01:29 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Thursday 12 January 2012 20:59:41 Scott Wood wrote: >>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c >>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c >>> >>> +#ifndef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_LIST >>> +#define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_LIST { CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE } >>> +#endif >> >> would this be better off in nand.h ? > > I'm trying to get away from the model where the NAND subsystem pretends > to know anything about how a driver talks to its hardware (except when > the driver chooses to use a common NAND function that uses things like > IO_ADDR_R/W). For eLBC it probably makes more sense to specify the > chipselect rather than the address (we have to search for the former > based on the latter), though that's a separate change that can happen on > its own now that the connection to subsystem code has been severed.
Also, even when there isn't a mismatch with the hardware interface, this frees up the driver to initialize in other ways, separate from a fixed list iterated over during U-Boot startup -- the addresses could come from a device tree, for example. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot