On Monday 16 January 2012 15:03:37 Scott Wood wrote:
> 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.ok ... no complaints from me then ;) > > 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. sure, it'll require some more plumbing to make happen -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
