On 10/31/2011 03:56 AM, Simon Schwarz wrote:
Dear Scott,
On 10/25/2011 08:24 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 10/16/2011 05:10 AM, Simon Schwarz wrote:
This adds DMA copy for the nand spl implementation. If CONFIG_SPL_DMA_SUPPORT is defined the DMA is used.
Based on DMA driver patch: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/109744/focus=109747
As Wolfgang pointed out, this doesn't belong here. Create your own alternate SPL driver if your hardware doesn't work with the simple one (similar to the not-yet-migrated nand_spl/nand_boot_fsl_elbc.c, nand_spl/nand_boot_fsl_ifc.c, etc).
Hm. The naming of the functions was a fault. Will rename the calls in nand_spl_simple to remove omap parts. So omap3_dma_wait_for_transfer will become dma_wait_for_transfer etc.
So a board which intents to use DMA in SPL can implement these functions. Would this be ok?
What would the semantics of a generic dma_wait_for_transfer() be?
I just don't see how this is generic at all, whatever the name.
A whole new driver is IMHO not the right thing as there is too much duplicated code then.
So factor the common bits out into a separate file.
@@ -46,11 +59,11 @@ static int nand_command(int block, int page, uint32_t offs, this->cmd_ctrl(&mtd, offs, NAND_CTRL_ALE | NAND_CTRL_CHANGE); this->cmd_ctrl(&mtd, page_addr& 0xff, NAND_CTRL_ALE); /* A[16:9] */ this->cmd_ctrl(&mtd, (page_addr>> 8)& 0xff,
NAND_CTRL_ALE); /* A[24:17] */
NAND_CTRL_ALE); /* A[24:17] */
NAND_CTRL_ALE); /* A[28:25] */
NAND_CTRL_ALE); /* A[28:25] */Please refrain from making random unrelated whitespace changes in a patch that also makes functional changes, particularly when they are extensive enough to make it hard to spot the functional changes.
In this particular case, I think the whitespace was fine the way it was; the continuation lines were nicely aligned.
If I remember right I changed these because of checkpatch errors.
I believe checkpatch only complains when you have 8 or more spaces in a row, which isn't the case here. I don't think there's any prohibition on lining things up with single-column granularity.
Further, checkpatch should not be complaining about lines that you don't touch.
Where reformatting is warranted, it should be a separate patch.
-Scott