From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from eusmtp01.atmel.com ([212.144.249.242]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WxUtR-0004MB-S3 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 05:28:14 +0000 Message-ID: <53A274CE.7060503@atmel.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:27:42 +0800 From: Bo Shen MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <539A5353.7090306@atmel.com> <539AF326.7010504@gmail.com> <539E9A90.4010808@atmel.com> <20140619043154.GE15426@ns203013.ovh.net> In-Reply-To: <20140619043154.GE15426@ns203013.ovh.net> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: atmel_nand pmecc on 8k page [RFC] To: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org Hi Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD, On 06/19/2014 12:31 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 15:19 Mon 16 Jun , Bo Shen wrote: >> >> Hi Matteo, >> >> On 06/13/2014 08:48 PM, Matteo Fortini wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> glad you found my patch useful. Sascha rejected it because he sees it >>> more fit to separate the initialization of sama5d3 and sam9 since they >>> are quite different. >>> >>> I started, as advised by Sascha, to create into sam9_smc.c the function >>> >>> void sama5d3_smc_configure(int id, int cs, struct sama5d3_smc_config >>> *config) >>> >>> but this brings on some other changes to keep the same structure of >>> functions, i.e. we would need to implement >>> >>> static void sama5d3_smc_cs_configure(void __iomem *base, struct >>> sama5d3_smc_config *config) >>> >>> and all the related functions, since the argument changes from struct >>> sam9_smc_config * to struct sama5d3_smc_config * >>> >>> Now I'm asking you all for a comment: should we go ahead and create a >>> new sama5d3_smc.c file with all the functions (some will unfortunately >>> be a duplicate of those present in sam9_smc.c), or should I do a partial >>> hack to insert sama5d3 specific functions into sam9_smc.c (like, for >>> example, playing with config structures so that the sam9 one is just the >>> head of the sama5d3)? >> >> I think we'd better to create a new sama5d3_smc.c. This will be more >> readable, and also benefit for the new coming SoC. > > > NACK > > that was raised on the kernel the sam9 & sama5 does does share the IP the a5 > just have more features After I search the latest Linux kernel code, I don't find the related information, can you be more specific? A link or some reference code will be better. > Best Regards, > J. Best Regards, Bo Shen _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox