On 2018/10/18 22:24, Boris Brezillon wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:09:05 +0800 Jianxin Pan <[email protected]> wrote:+static int meson_nfc_exec_op(struct nand_chip *chip, + const struct nand_operation *op, bool check_only) +{ + struct mtd_info *mtd = nand_to_mtd(chip); + struct meson_nfc *nfc = nand_get_controller_data(chip); + const struct nand_op_instr *instr = NULL; + int ret = 0, cmd; + unsigned int op_id; + int i; + + for (op_id = 0; op_id < op->ninstrs; op_id++) { + instr = &op->instrs[op_id]; + switch (instr->type) { + case NAND_OP_CMD_INSTR: + if (instr->ctx.cmd.opcode == NAND_CMD_STATUS) + meson_nfc_cmd_idle(nfc, nfc->timing.twb);Hm, I don't want drivers to base their decisions on the opcode value. There's a ->delay_ns field in the instruction object, can't you use that one instead? Also, I don't understand why this is only needed for the STATUS command. It should normally be applied to all instructions.
em, it should be applied to all instructions. i will fix it and use instr->delay_ns instead.
+ cmd = nfc->param.chip_select | NFC_CMD_CLE; + cmd |= instr->ctx.cmd.opcode & 0xff; + writel(cmd, nfc->reg_base + NFC_REG_CMD); + if (instr->ctx.cmd.opcode == NAND_CMD_STATUS) + meson_nfc_cmd_idle(nfc, nfc->timing.twhr); + break; + + case NAND_OP_ADDR_INSTR: + for (i = 0; i < instr->ctx.addr.naddrs; i++) { + cmd = nfc->param.chip_select | NFC_CMD_ALE; + cmd |= instr->ctx.addr.addrs[i] & 0xff; + writel(cmd, nfc->reg_base + NFC_REG_CMD); + } + break; + + case NAND_OP_DATA_IN_INSTR: + meson_nfc_read_buf(mtd, instr->ctx.data.buf.in, + instr->ctx.data.len); + break; + + case NAND_OP_DATA_OUT_INSTR: + meson_nfc_write_buf(mtd, instr->ctx.data.buf.out, + instr->ctx.data.len); + break; + + case NAND_OP_WAITRDY_INSTR: + meson_nfc_queue_rb(nfc, instr->ctx.waitrdy.timeout_ms); + break; + } + } + return ret; +}.
