Hi Vladimir, Marek,
Thanks for the feedback; see comments below.
From: U-Boot [mailto:u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Vladimir Zapolskiy
Hi Marek, Sylvain,
On 29.07.2015 19:50, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 06:14:08 PM, slemieux.tyco@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
static void lpc32xx_read_buf(struct mtd_info *mtd, uint8_t *buf, int len) { +#if defined(CONFIG_DMA_LPC32XX) && !defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD)
I'm not a big fan of those ifdefs -- why not use DMA even in SPL ?
I think the main reason is that DMA in SPL has not been tested yet.
If needed (?) the dependency between DMA and SPL may be described separately, e.g.
+#if defined(CONFIG_DMA_LPC32XX) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) +#warning "DMA support in SPL image is not tested" +#endif
Agree with Vladimir to add this change if everybody is OK with the change.
Regarding this particular #ifdef case I suppose just
+#if defined(CONFIG_DMA_LPC32XX)
is good enough here, either it is SPL or U-boot.
I agree with this change for the ifdef; is there any objection to this change?
- lpc32xx_nand_xfer(mtd, buf, len, 1);
+#else while (len-- > 0) *buf++ = readl(&lpc32xx_nand_slc_regs->data); +#endif }
I would propose to add another pair of DMA specific lpc32xx_read_buf()/lpc32xx_write_buf() functions chosen under CONFIG_DMA_LPC32XX condition, this might improve readability.
I will do it; it will make the code more easy to read.
-- With best wishes, Vladimir _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
________________________________
This e-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended for the use of the addressees named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in respect of any information contained in it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and immediately destroy this e-mail and its attachments.