On Monday, January 04, 2016 at 11:42:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 23:40 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On Monday, January 04, 2016 at 10:45:08 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > > On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 22:17 +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:38:23PM +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:23:36PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 16:54 +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote: > > > > > > > From: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To support UBI in SPL we need a simple flash read function. Add > > > > one > > > > > > > > > to nand_spl_simple and keep it as simple as it goes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is your signoff? > > > > > > > > > > I'm only messenger and have nothing to do with this part of patch. > > > > > The other > > > > > part which I touched has my signoff. > > > > > > > > > > > Did Thomas really write this patch for U-Boot (if so, why isn't > > > > > > he > > > > on > > > > > > > > CC?) or > > > > > > is it taken from some other project? > > > > > > > > > > Ha! It is my mailer which broke Cc. Thomas was on Cc list and still > > > > > is in my > > > > > sent-mail folder. Also apologize to Marek, let's see how Cc will > > > > > end this time. > > > > > And yes, patch was written for U-Boot: > > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/367305/ > > > > > > > > Well, seems to be mailman configuration: > > > > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2006-May/051194.html > > > > so those who received post via mailman are seeing striped Cc line. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > to Nathan Lynch for pointing it out. > > > > Full Cc list: > > > > Cc: Scott Wood <o...@buserror.net> > > > > Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > > > > Cc: Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> > > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> > > > > Cc: Richard Weinberger <rich...@nod.at> > > > > Cc: Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> > > > > > > Oh right, I forgot about that mailman bug. > > > > > > > > > +int nand_spl_read_flash(u32 pnum, u32 offset, u32 len, void > > > > > > *dest) > > > > > > > > > > > > This name is too generic and doesn't suggest what's different > > > > > > compared to > > > > > > nand_spl_load_image (they both read data from flash into a > > > > > > buffer). > > > > > > > > > > > > How about nand_spl_read_block()? > > > > > > > > > > ok. > > > > > > > > Thinking about it more, I'd rather see nand_spl_read_peb(int peb, ... > > > > but that is not consistent with other nand reading functions. > > > > > > "peb" is cryptic, and what sort of non-physical erase block does the > > > core NAND code deal with that warrants distinction? > > > > PEB is the standard UBI term, no problem there ... > > This isn't UBI code (hence the reference to "core NAND code"), even if it's > mainly meant to support UBI.
Ah, gotcha. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
