On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 23:40 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Monday, January 04, 2016 at 10:45:08 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 22:17 +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote:
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:38:23PM +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote:
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:23:36PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 16:54 +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote:
From: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de
To support UBI in SPL we need a simple flash read function. Add
one
to nand_spl_simple and keep it as simple as it goes.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de
Where is your signoff?
I'm only messenger and have nothing to do with this part of patch. The other part which I touched has my signoff.
Did Thomas really write this patch for U-Boot (if so, why isn't he
on
CC?) or is it taken from some other project?
Ha! It is my mailer which broke Cc. Thomas was on Cc list and still is in my sent-mail folder. Also apologize to Marek, let's see how Cc will end this time. And yes, patch was written for U-Boot: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/367305/
Well, seems to be mailman configuration: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2006-May/051194.html so those who received post via mailman are seeing striped Cc line.
Thanks
to Nathan Lynch for pointing it out. Full Cc list: Cc: Scott Wood oss@buserror.net Cc: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com Cc: Heiko Schocher hs@denx.de Cc: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de Cc: Richard Weinberger richard@nod.at Cc: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de
Oh right, I forgot about that mailman bug.
+int nand_spl_read_flash(u32 pnum, u32 offset, u32 len, void *dest)
This name is too generic and doesn't suggest what's different compared to nand_spl_load_image (they both read data from flash into a buffer).
How about nand_spl_read_block()?
ok.
Thinking about it more, I'd rather see nand_spl_read_peb(int peb, ... but that is not consistent with other nand reading functions.
"peb" is cryptic, and what sort of non-physical erase block does the core NAND code deal with that warrants distinction?
PEB is the standard UBI term, no problem there ...
This isn't UBI code (hence the reference to "core NAND code"), even if it's mainly meant to support UBI.
-Scott