On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 11:34 -0600, Chin Liang See wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 18:03 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 14:51 -0600, Chin Liang See wrote:
To add the Denali NAND driver support into U-Boot. It required information such as register base address from configuration header file within include/configs folder.
Signed-off-by: Chin Liang See clsee@altera.com Cc: Artem Bityutskiy artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com Cc: David Woodhouse David.Woodhouse@intel.com Cc: Brian Norris computersforpeace@gmail.com Cc: Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com
Changes for v2
- Enable this driver support for SOCFPGA
drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile | 1 + drivers/mtd/nand/denali_nand.c | 1166 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/mtd/nand/denali_nand.h | 501 +++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 1668 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/mtd/nand/denali_nand.c create mode 100644 drivers/mtd/nand/denali_nand.h
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile index 02b149c..24e8218 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_NAND_ECC_BCH) += nand_bch.o obj-$(CONFIG_NAND_ATMEL) += atmel_nand.o obj-$(CONFIG_DRIVER_NAND_BFIN) += bfin_nand.o obj-$(CONFIG_NAND_DAVINCI) += davinci_nand.o +obj-$(CONFIG_NAND_DENALI) += denali_nand.o obj-$(CONFIG_NAND_FSL_ELBC) += fsl_elbc_nand.o obj-$(CONFIG_NAND_FSL_IFC) += fsl_ifc_nand.o obj-$(CONFIG_NAND_FSL_UPM) += fsl_upm.o diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/denali_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/denali_nand.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..55246c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/denali_nand.c
It's "denali.c" in Linux -- why "denali_nand.c" here?
It seems all the existing U-Boot nand driver is using this naming standard where <platform>_nand.
Not all -- there's omap_gpmc.c, omap_elm.c, nomadik.c, ndfc.c, etc.
A lot of them have the _nand.c suffix in Linux, too. Personally, I think it's redundant.
Why PASS/FAIL rather than normal "0 on success, negative error code on
error"? Why uint16_t?
Fixed by returning 0 when pass. Also changed uint16_t to uint32_t
Why uint32_t and not int? Is that return value somewhere used in a context that expects a NAND hardware status?
-Scott