On 07:58 Tue 28 Jul , Kyungmin Park wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Jean-Christophe > PLAGNIOL-VILLARD<plagn...@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > > On 14:28 Fri 24 Jul , Kyungmin Park wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Jean-Christophe > >> PLAGNIOL-VILLARD<plagn...@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > >> > On 09:55 Tue 21 Jul , Kyungmin Park wrote: > >> >> S5PC100 has own OneNAND controller and has different interface. > >> >> OneNAND IPL use it to S5PC100 board. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.p...@samsung.com> > >> >> --- > >> > is there any better than put soc specific code in generic implementatioN > >> > > >> > >> I hope so. only s3c64xx series and s5pc100 use own OneNAND controller. > >> I also don't understand why need these controller. The OneNAND has its > >> own controller at chips already. > > I known > > so what do you propose? > > > > just commit the patch I sent. It's difficult to remove the ifdef since > size limitation. I understand your problem of size but is there any otherway to do ti without the onenand soc controler ?
I'll prefer we find a way to not put soc specific code in the generic code maybe we can crete a header which will be soc specific or a generic that we will include depending on the soc Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
