On 02/28/2013 04:38 AM, Philip, Avinash wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 23:00:33, Hunter, Jon wrote: >> Convert the OMAP2+ NAND code to use the gpmc_cs_program_settings() >> function for configuring the various GPMC options instead of directly >> programming the CONFIG1 register. >> >> This moves the configuration of some GPMC options outside the >> nand_gpmc_retime() because these options should only need to be set once >> regardless of whether the gpmc timing is changing dynamically at runtime. >> The programming of where the wait-pin is also moved slightly, but this >> will not have any impact to existing devices as no boards are currently >> setting the dev_ready variable. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <[email protected]> >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-nand.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------ >> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-nand.c >> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-nand.c >> index afc1e8c..4bdfea2 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-nand.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-nand.c >> @@ -43,6 +43,10 @@ static struct platform_device gpmc_nand_device = { >> .resource = gpmc_nand_resource, >> }; >> >> +static struct gpmc_settings nand_settings = { >> + .device_nand = true, >> +}; >> + > > Is it possible to make it local variable? > It would help GPMC to support NAND device on multiple chip select.
Well gpmc_nand_init() will be called for each NAND device and so I don't see why this would prevent supporting multiple NANDs on multiple chip-selects. Once migration to device-tree is complete we could definitely make it local as there will be no need for any static initialisations of the structure as all fields would be read from device-tree. I can make it local now if that is preferred and seeing that will be the direction once we have migrated to device-tree, is does make sense. Cheers Jon _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
