On 01/16/2012 01:58 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 16 January 2012 11:51:14 Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 01/15/2012 01:29 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Thursday 12 January 2012 20:59:41 Scott Wood wrote:
>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
>>>>
>>>> +#ifndef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_LIST
>>>> +#define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_LIST { CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE }
>>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> would this be better off in nand.h ?
>>
>> I'm trying to get away from the model where the NAND subsystem pretends
>> to know anything about how a driver talks to its hardware (except when
>> the driver chooses to use a common NAND function that uses things like
>> IO_ADDR_R/W). For eLBC it probably makes more sense to specify the
>> chipselect rather than the address (we have to search for the former
>> based on the latter), though that's a separate change that can happen on
>> its own now that the connection to subsystem code has been severed.
>
> so the idea would be to let CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_LIST and
> CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE
> die for devices that could care less ?
Yes.
> and eventually obsolete CONFIG_SYS_MAX_NAND_DEVICE ?
This is harder, as we still have a notion of an array of enumerated NAND
devices in the command line code.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
