On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:59:31 +0000 Peter Pan <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Brian Norris <[email protected]> > > Use new BBT APIs (nand_bbt_*()) in NAND. Keep old APIs (nand_*_bbt()) > exist temporarily. > > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <[email protected]> > [Peter: 1. use nand_bbt_markbad_factory() in docg4.c and implement > 2. nand_create_factory_badblock_pattern(), nand_is_bad_bbm() and > nand_default_bbt() in nand_base.c > 3. add NAND_BADBLOCK_PATTERN_ALLOC macro] > Signed-off-by: Peter Pan <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/mtd/nand/docg4.c | 6 +- > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 140 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > include/linux/mtd/nand.h | 9 ++- > 3 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/docg4.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/docg4.c > index da93d7f..1be7fa2 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/docg4.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/docg4.c > @@ -1037,7 +1037,7 @@ static int __init read_factory_bbt(struct mtd_info *mtd) > * operation after device power-up. The above read ensures it never is. > * Ugly, I know. > */ > - if (nand->bbt == NULL) /* no memory-based bbt */ > + if (nand->nand_bbt == NULL) /* no memory-based bbt */ Hm, can we avoid direct references to the ->nand_bbt field by either providing an accessor (nand_get_bbt()), or providing wrappers around the nand_chip device (nand_has_bbt(nand), nand_markbad_factory(nand, ofs), ...)? In my rather limited experience, doing that is more future-proof. -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
