Hi Scott
On Saturday 02 April 2016 05:01 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 18:25 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 16:59 +0530, Mugunthan V N wrote:
+static int nand_child_pre_probe(struct udevice *dev) +{
- nand_info_t *nand = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev);
- void *priv = dev_get_priv(dev);
- /*
* Store nand device priv pointer in nand_info so that* it can be used by nand command*/- nand->priv = priv;
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a pointer to the device in the NAND struct, and let the driver manage both privs as it chooses?
This makes even less sense after seeing patch 5/9, which assumes dev priv is nand_info_t, and stores its own data in nand->priv. Won't this overwrite that?
This nand is not the same as in omap_gpmc driver priv nand, here nand specifies nand_info_t which is "struct mtd_info" and in omap_gpmc driver it is "struct nand_chip".
In class: (nand_info_t) nand->priv = driver priv, ie nand_chip
In driver: (nand_chip) nand->priv = struct omap_nand_info * (internal to driver)
So both are different and used for different purposes.
Regards Mugunthan V N