On 10/31/2011 03:56 AM, Simon Schwarz wrote: > Dear Scott, > > On 10/25/2011 08:24 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 10/16/2011 05:10 AM, Simon Schwarz wrote: >>> This adds DMA copy for the nand spl implementation. If >>> CONFIG_SPL_DMA_SUPPORT >>> is defined the DMA is used. >>> >>> Based on DMA driver patch: >>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/109744/focus=109747 >> >> As Wolfgang pointed out, this doesn't belong here. Create your own >> alternate SPL driver if your hardware doesn't work with the simple one >> (similar to the not-yet-migrated nand_spl/nand_boot_fsl_elbc.c, >> nand_spl/nand_boot_fsl_ifc.c, etc). >> > > Hm. The naming of the functions was a fault. Will rename the calls in > nand_spl_simple to remove omap parts. So > omap3_dma_wait_for_transfer > will become > dma_wait_for_transfer > etc. > > So a board which intents to use DMA in SPL can implement these > functions. Would this be ok?
What would the semantics of a generic dma_wait_for_transfer() be? I just don't see how this is generic at all, whatever the name. > A whole new driver is IMHO not the right thing as there is too much > duplicated code then. So factor the common bits out into a separate file. >>> @@ -46,11 +59,11 @@ static int nand_command(int block, int page, uint32_t >>> offs, >>> this->cmd_ctrl(&mtd, offs, NAND_CTRL_ALE | NAND_CTRL_CHANGE); >>> this->cmd_ctrl(&mtd, page_addr& 0xff, NAND_CTRL_ALE); /* A[16:9] */ >>> this->cmd_ctrl(&mtd, (page_addr>> 8)& 0xff, >>> - NAND_CTRL_ALE); /* A[24:17] */ >>> + NAND_CTRL_ALE); /* A[24:17] */ >>> #ifdef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_4_ADDR_CYCLE >>> /* One more address cycle for devices> 32MiB */ >>> this->cmd_ctrl(&mtd, (page_addr>> 16)& 0x0f, >>> - NAND_CTRL_ALE); /* A[28:25] */ >>> + NAND_CTRL_ALE); /* A[28:25] */ >>> #endif >> >> Please refrain from making random unrelated whitespace changes in a >> patch that also makes functional changes, particularly when they are >> extensive enough to make it hard to spot the functional changes. >> >> In this particular case, I think the whitespace was fine the way it was; >> the continuation lines were nicely aligned. > > > If I remember right I changed these because of checkpatch errors. I believe checkpatch only complains when you have 8 or more spaces in a row, which isn't the case here. I don't think there's any prohibition on lining things up with single-column granularity. Further, checkpatch should not be complaining about lines that you don't touch. Where reformatting is warranted, it should be a separate patch. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
