Hi Miquel,
On 10/29/2018 11:29 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> Vladimir Zapolskiy <v...@mleia.com> wrote on Fri, 19 Oct 2018 03:21:05
> +0300:
>
>> Build option CONFIG_SYS_MAX_NAND_CHIPS is used by NXP LPC32xx NAND MLC
>> driver only, as a preparation for potential removal or replacement of
>> the option the change predefines CONFIG_SYS_MAX_NAND_CHIPS to 1, same
>> value is used by the single user Work Microwave Work 92105 board, thus
>> it will be safe now to remove the option as a board specific one.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <v...@mleia.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/lpc32xx_nand_mlc.c | 4 ++++
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/lpc32xx_nand_mlc.c
>> b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/lpc32xx_nand_mlc.c
>> index 5d4ffea608d9..79d1489dc72c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/lpc32xx_nand_mlc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/lpc32xx_nand_mlc.c
>> @@ -82,6 +82,10 @@ struct lpc32xx_nand_mlc_registers {
>> static struct lpc32xx_nand_mlc_registers __iomem *lpc32xx_nand_mlc_registers
>> = (struct lpc32xx_nand_mlc_registers __iomem *)MLC_NAND_BASE;
>>
>> +#if !defined(CONFIG_SYS_MAX_NAND_CHIPS)
>> +#define CONFIG_SYS_MAX_NAND_CHIPS 1
>> +#endif
>> +
>> #define clkdiv(v, w, o) (((1+(clk/v)) & w) << o)
>>
>> /**
>
>
> If it is safe now, can you also remote the CONFIG_ option now?
At the moment I plan to remove the CONFIG_SYS_MAX_NAND_CHIPS option
from include/configs/work_92105.h as a side activity (concentrate all
LPC32xx raw NAND options in arch/arm/include/asm/arch-lpc32xx/config.h,
the change is in my queue), and regarding total removal of the option,
it shall be considered separately.
For instance you can find it is mentioned in doc/README.nand :
if (nand_scan_ident(mtd, CONFIG_SYS_MAX_NAND_CHIPS, NULL))
error out
and commonly it would be expected to provide it as an argument to
nand_scan_ident(), however it is easy to notice that none drivers
but LPC32xx NAND MLC does it. Also note that sometimes NAND *chips*
number is substituted by a number of NAND *controllers* on SoC...
Generally it sounds like a proper change should be a tree-wide one.
So, while I clearly understand the rationale, I would prefer to shift
the task to the MTD maintainers ;)
>
> Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.ray...@bootlin.com>
Thank you for review!
--
Best wishes,
Vladimir
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
