On 03/08/2015 02:14 PM, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > Ezequiel Garcia <[email protected]> writes: > >> Hi Antoine, >> >> On 03/05/2015 08:31 AM, Antoine Tenart wrote: >> [..] >>> + >>> +static struct pxa3xx_nand_flash berlin_builtin_flash_types[] = { >>> +{ "4GiB 8-bit", 0xd7ec, 128, 8192, 8, 8, 4096 }, >>> +{ }, >> >> IMHO, supporting a specific flash shouldn't be part of this patch. >> >> In any case, why do you need this? If you can share the details about >> this device, it would be interesting for me to take a look. >> >> This driver's open-coded, legacy-style flash detection is nasty, and the >> only reason I've kept it is to avoid breaking some wacky user with some >> old board. In fact, maybe we can just kill it so nobody thinks it's sane. > > I think you'll kill the zylonite board, and I'll nack it if that's the case. > At > least that's what happened when I tried to use onfi default values last time > in > barebox development. > > I can test your changes, but if the specific zylonite nand (ie. nand id > 0xba20, > ie. pxa310 embedded flash) gets broken, I'm against the removal of the legacy > timings removal. >
I'm not speaking of any timing params here, but about the flash identification. Which flash do you have there? -- Ezequiel García, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android 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/
