On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 02:01:15AM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:10 PM Vignesh R <vigne...@ti.com> wrote: > > > > Current U-Boot SPI NOR support (sf layer) is quite outdated as it does not > > support 4 byte addressing opcodes, SFDP table parsing and different types of > > quad mode enable sequences. Many newer flashes no longer support BANK > > registers used by sf layer to a access >16MB space. > > Also, many SPI controllers have special MMIO interfaces which provide > > accelerated read/write access but require knowledge of flash parameters > > to make use of it. Recent spi-mem layer provides a way to support such > > flashes but sf layer isn't using that. > > So sync SPI NOR framework from Linux v4.19 and add spi-mem support on top. > > in order to gain 4 byte addressing support, SFDP support and a way to > > support SPI controllers with MMIO flash interface. > > > > Signed-off-by: Vignesh R <vigne...@ti.com> > > --- > > drivers/mtd/spi/spi-nor-core.c | 2647 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/linux/mtd/cfi.h | 32 + > > include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h | 421 +++++ > > Please refer many mails about this comment. I don't look for carbon > copy of the code from Linux, you can use the implementation and even > macro names etc but the end code would be the code that require > U-Boot. > > - no __UBOOT ifdef
What? This is the exact opposite of what we're doing in several other areas, with a large amount of success precisely because it allows us to leverage developer base to catch and fix problems. Dropping in the code and minor and obvious deviations make for easier re-sync. > - file names in u-boot should have _ other than few uclass drivers There is no consistent naming scheme really. I see ~1500 "_" C files and ~500 "-" files. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
