On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 11:34 -0600, Chin Liang See wrote: > On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 18:03 -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 14:51 -0600, Chin Liang See wrote: > > > To add the Denali NAND driver support into U-Boot. It required > > > information such as register base address from configuration > > > header file within include/configs folder. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chin Liang See <cl...@altera.com> > > > Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityuts...@linux.intel.com> > > > Cc: David Woodhouse <david.woodho...@intel.com> > > > Cc: Brian Norris <computersforpe...@gmail.com> > > > Cc: Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> > > > --- > > > Changes for v2 > > > - Enable this driver support for SOCFPGA > > > --- > > > drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile | 1 + > > > drivers/mtd/nand/denali_nand.c | 1166 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > drivers/mtd/nand/denali_nand.h | 501 +++++++++++++++++ > > > 3 files changed, 1668 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 drivers/mtd/nand/denali_nand.c > > > create mode 100644 drivers/mtd/nand/denali_nand.h > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > > > index 02b149c..24e8218 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > > > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_NAND_ECC_BCH) += nand_bch.o > > > obj-$(CONFIG_NAND_ATMEL) += atmel_nand.o > > > obj-$(CONFIG_DRIVER_NAND_BFIN) += bfin_nand.o > > > obj-$(CONFIG_NAND_DAVINCI) += davinci_nand.o > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_NAND_DENALI) += denali_nand.o > > > obj-$(CONFIG_NAND_FSL_ELBC) += fsl_elbc_nand.o > > > obj-$(CONFIG_NAND_FSL_IFC) += fsl_ifc_nand.o > > > obj-$(CONFIG_NAND_FSL_UPM) += fsl_upm.o > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/denali_nand.c > > > b/drivers/mtd/nand/denali_nand.c > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..55246c9 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/denali_nand.c > > > > It's "denali.c" in Linux -- why "denali_nand.c" here? > > > > It seems all the existing U-Boot nand driver is using this naming > standard where <platform>_nand.
Not all -- there's omap_gpmc.c, omap_elm.c, nomadik.c, ndfc.c, etc. A lot of them have the _nand.c suffix in Linux, too. Personally, I think it's redundant. > > > Why PASS/FAIL rather than normal "0 on success, negative error code on > > error"? Why uint16_t? > > > > > Fixed by returning 0 when pass. Also changed uint16_t to uint32_t Why uint32_t and not int? Is that return value somewhere used in a context that expects a NAND hardware status? -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
