Hello Scott,
Am 25.05.2016 um 16:51 schrieb Scott Wood:
On 05/25/2016 01:10 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
Hello Scott,
Am 25.05.2016 um 07:30 schrieb Scott Wood:
On 05/25/2016 12:07 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
add for nand devices mtd concat support. Generic MTD concat support is already ported to mainline, and used in the cfi_mtd driver. This patch adds it similiar for nand devices.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher hs@denx.de
drivers/mtd/nand/nand.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand.c index 8f0a921..5413123 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand.c
[...]
- /* Register an initialized NAND mtd device with the U-Boot NAND command. */ int nand_register(int devnum) {
@@ -49,6 +56,9 @@ int nand_register(int devnum) * via the mtdcore infrastructure (e.g. ubi). */ add_mtd_device(mtd); +#ifdef CONFIG_MTD_CONCAT
- mtd_nand_list[nand_devices_found++] = mtd;
+#endif
Why do we need another list of NAND devices? Use nand_info[].
Ah, correct ... struct nand_info_t == struct mtd_info ... Hmm... why we need a "struct nand_info_t" ?
It's a typedef, not a struct... and we don't need it. I already have a
Oh, yes, sorry.
patch in the set I'm working on for the Linux NAND sync that removes the typedef, and another that converts nand_info[] into an array of pointers (which should make calling mtd_concat_create easier).
Thanks!
@@ -102,4 +112,23 @@ void nand_init(void) */ board_nand_select_device(nand_info[nand_curr_device].priv, nand_curr_device); #endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_MTD_CONCAT
- if (nand_devices_found > 1) {
struct mtd_info *mtd;/** We detected multiple devices. Concatenate them together.*/sprintf(c_mtd_name, "nand%d", nand_devices_found);mtd = mtd_concat_create(mtd_nand_list, nand_devices_found,c_mtd_name);if (mtd == NULL)return;if (add_mtd_device(mtd))return;- }
+#endif /* CONFIG_MTD_CONCAT */ }
Please don't add new features that depend on the old-style NAND init.
Hmm... my add works for the "#ifdef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_SELF_INIT" case and the "else" case ... where would be the appropriate place?
You're right... For some reason I was thinking that none of this was called with self-init.
Ok, so I let it here.
bye, Heiko