Hi Marek, Sylvain,
On 29.07.2015 19:50, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 06:14:08 PM, slemieux.t...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[snip]
>> static void lpc32xx_read_buf(struct mtd_info *mtd, uint8_t *buf, int len)
>> {
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_DMA_LPC32XX) && !defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD)
>
> I'm not a big fan of those ifdefs -- why not use DMA even in SPL ?
I think the main reason is that DMA in SPL has not been tested yet.
If needed (?) the dependency between DMA and SPL may be described
separately, e.g.
+#if defined(CONFIG_DMA_LPC32XX) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD)
+#warning "DMA support in SPL image is not tested"
+#endif
Regarding this particular #ifdef case I suppose just
+#if defined(CONFIG_DMA_LPC32XX)
is good enough here, either it is SPL or U-boot.
>> + lpc32xx_nand_xfer(mtd, buf, len, 1);
>> +#else
>> while (len-- > 0)
>> *buf++ = readl(&lpc32xx_nand_slc_regs->data);
>> +#endif
>> }
I would propose to add another pair of DMA specific
lpc32xx_read_buf()/lpc32xx_write_buf() functions chosen under
CONFIG_DMA_LPC32XX condition, this might improve readability.
--
With best wishes,
Vladimir
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
