On 01/16/2012 01:58 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 16 January 2012 11:51:14 Scott Wood wrote:
On 01/15/2012 01:29 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 12 January 2012 20:59:41 Scott Wood wrote:
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
+#ifndef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_LIST +#define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_LIST { CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE } +#endif
would this be better off in nand.h ?
I'm trying to get away from the model where the NAND subsystem pretends to know anything about how a driver talks to its hardware (except when the driver chooses to use a common NAND function that uses things like IO_ADDR_R/W). For eLBC it probably makes more sense to specify the chipselect rather than the address (we have to search for the former based on the latter), though that's a separate change that can happen on its own now that the connection to subsystem code has been severed.
so the idea would be to let CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_LIST and CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE die for devices that could care less ?
Yes.
and eventually obsolete CONFIG_SYS_MAX_NAND_DEVICE ?
This is harder, as we still have a notion of an array of enumerated NAND devices in the command line code.
-Scott