Hi Ezequiel, Sorry for reply your mail late. And thaks a lot for reviewing it.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Ezequiel Garcia <ezequ...@vanguardiasur.com.ar> wrote: > Hello, > > On 13 March 2016 at 23:47, Peter Pan <peterpans...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Sorry for send the v3 out late. I went through a busy time in the past >> two month. >> >> Currently nand_bbt.c is tied with struct nand_chip, and it makes other >> NAND family chips hard to use nand_bbt.c. Maybe it's the reason why >> onenand has own bbt(onenand_bbt.c). >> >> Separate struct nand_chip from BBT code can make current BBT shareable. >> We create struct nand_bbt to take place of nand_chip in nand_bbt.c. >> Struct nand_bbt contains all the information BBT needed from outside and >> it should be embedded into NAND family chip struct (such as struct >> nand_chip). >> >> Below is mtd folder structure we want: >> drivers/mtd/nand/<all-nand-core-code> >> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/<raw-nand-controller-drivers> >> drivers/mtd/nand/spi/<spi-nand-code> >> drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/<onenand-code> >> drivers/mtd/nand/chips/<manufacturer-spcific-code> >> > > You mention this structure, but nothing in the current patchset is actually > enforcing it. This is more the future direction we are going. Yes, this is what we want. > >> Most of the patch is borrowed from Brian Norris >> <computersforpe...@gmail.com>. >> http://git.infradead.org/users/norris/linux-mtd.git/shortlog/refs/heads/nand-bbt >> I decided the authorship of each patch by contribution. Please let me know if >> there is something unproper. >> Based on Brian's suggestion and Boris's comments, I make 11 independent >> patches. Previous patch is http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/492066/ >> After discussion with Boris and Ezequiel, I realized above structure is >> better, >> so I drop the patch to move nand_bbt.c to mtd folder. >> > > I have reviewed this patchset, and it looks mostly good to me. I can > spot trivial style comments, or comments related to the commit logs, or the > way commits are splitted. > > Boris will probably have more insightful comments to make. > > However, before starting my silly bikeshedding I'd like to know if we all > agree with the patchset's overall scheme. > > It would be good to finally move forward with this, to take mt29f out > of staging and also support other SPI NAND vendors. Yes. We plan to move mt29f_spi_nand out from staging. But because mt29f_spi_nand is under raw/parallel NAND framework, it mismatch the stucture we want. Rewite it under SPI NAND framework may be a better choice, right? Actually I'm working on this now. Thanks, Peter Pan
