Hi Roger,
From: Quadros, Roger
>On 05/20/2014 09:24 AM, Pekon Gupta wrote:
>> This patch enables 'wait-pin' monitoring in NAND driver if following
>> properties
>> are present under NAND DT node
>> gpmc,wait-pin = <wait-pin number>
>> gpmc,wait-on-read
>> gpmc,wait-on-write
>> As NAND generic framework uses common path nand_chip->dev_ready() for
>> monitoring
>> completion of Read and Write status, so wait-pin monitoring is enabled only
>> when
>> *both* 'gpmc,wait-on-read' and 'gpmc,wait-on-write' are specified.
>>
>> CC: [email protected]
>> Signed-off-by: Pekon Gupta <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmc-nand.txt | 8 ++++++++
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-nand.c | 8 +++++---
>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmc-nand.txt
>b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmc-nand.txt
>> index eb81435..4039032 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmc-nand.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmc-nand.txt
>> @@ -45,6 +45,14 @@ Optional properties:
>> ELM hardware engines should specify this device node in .dtsi
>> Using ELM for ECC error correction frees some CPU cycles.
>>
>> + - gpmc,wait-pin=<pin number> Specifies GPMC wait-pin number to
>> monitor
>> + - gpmc,wait-on-read Enable wait-pin monitoring for Read
>> accesses
>> + - gpmc,wait-on-write Enable wait-pin monitoring for Write
>> accesses
>> + As NAND generic framework uses single common function
>> + nand_chip->dev_ready() for polling wait-pin both for Read and
>> + Write accesses. So for NAND devices both 'gpmc,wait-on-read' and
>> + 'gpmc,wait-on-write' need to be specified together.
>> +
>> For inline partiton table parsing (optional):
>>
>
>
>> - #address-cells: should be set to 1
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-nand.c
>> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-nand.c
>> index 17cd393..62bc3de 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-nand.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-nand.c
>> @@ -123,11 +123,13 @@ int gpmc_nand_init(struct omap_nand_platform_data
>> *gpmc_nand_data,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - if (gpmc_nand_data->of_node)
>> + if (gpmc_nand_data->of_node) {
>> gpmc_read_settings_dt(gpmc_nand_data->of_node, &s);
>> - else
>> + if (s.wait_on_read && s.wait_on_write)
>> + gpmc_nand_data->dev_ready = true;
>> + } else {
>> gpmc_set_legacy(gpmc_nand_data, &s);
>> -
>> + }
>> s.device_nand = true;
>
>NACK.
>
>For NAND, we only need the wait-pin property. The wait-on-read/wait-on-write
>flags are meaningless.
There is a check in arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c : @@gpmc_read_settings_dt()
which expects at-least one of the 'gpmc,wait-on-read' or 'gpmc,wait-on-write'
to be enabled.
if (!p->wait_on_read && !p->wait_on_write)
pr_warn("%s: read/write wait monitoring not enabled!\n",
__func__);
And gpmc_read_settings_dt() is common for all GPMC devices (NAND, NOR, .. )
Now, if you remove that check it means you are deviating from the behavior of
DT binding, so you need to be backward compatible.
In practice, I agree that a single gpmc,wait-pin binding was enough to both
- Select the wait-pin
- Enable wait-pin monitoring for GPMC devices.
But now as we have two extra bindings, you have to maintain backward
compatibility.
If you have better solution, then please send a patch, I'll be happy to test it.
>Also, the wait-pin number needs to be communicated to the NAND driver and
>omap_dev_ready()
>function updated so that it checks for the right wait pin status.
>
Yes, that's true.
And this was my plan to have it as separate patch.
Also, the real benefit of wait-pin monitoring will be seen only
when its implemented as IRQ source. [1]
with regards, pekon
[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg107236.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
