On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 13:21:39 +0800 "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX" <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Boris, > > On 16/4/2020 7:57 pm, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 19:38:03 +0800 > > "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX" > > <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 16/4/2020 7:17 pm, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 18:40:53 +0800 > >>> "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX" > >>> <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>> we'll be happy to have one more of the existing driver converted to > >>>>>>> ->exec_op() ;-). > >>>>>> I have completely adapted to ->exec_op() hook up to replace the legacy > >>>>>> call-back. > >>>>> I suspect porting what you've done to the xway driver shouldn't be too > >>>>> complicated. > >>>> Not ported from xway_nand.c driver , we have developed from the scratch > >>>> to make it work on > >>>> Intel LGM SoC , it's new x86 ATOM based SoC, IP itself completely > >>>> different and most of the registers won't match. > >>>> if we port then it would be ugly and also what are the problem may occur > >>>> we do not know. > >>> Sorry but IMO they look similar enough to try to merge them. > >> Thanks! Boris, need suggestion from you since you are maintainer and > >> also expertise on mtd-subsystem. > > I *was* the maintainer :). > > > >> There are different features involved and lines of code is more, if we > >> add new driver patches over xway-nand driver > > How about retro-fitting the xway logic into your driver then? I mean, > > adding a 100 lines of code to your driver to get rid of the 500+ lines > > we have in xway_nand.c is still a win. > > > >> is completely looks ugly and it may disturb the existing functionality > >> as well since we don't have platform to validate:'(. > > How ugly? Can you show us? Maybe we can come with a solution to make it > > less ugly. > > > > As for the testing part, there are 4 scenarios: > > > > 1/ Your changes work perfectly fine on older platforms. Yay \o/! > > 2/ You break the xway driver and existing users notice it before this > > series gets merged. Now you found someone to validate your changes. > > 3/ You break the xway driver and none of the existing users notice it > > before the driver is merged, but they notice it afterwards. Too bad > > this happened after we've merged the driver, but now you've found > > someone to help you fix the problem :P. > > 4/ You break things for old platforms but no one ever complains about > > it, either because there's no users left or because they never > > update their kernels. In any case, that's no longer your problem. > > Someone will remove those old platforms one day and get rid of the > > unneeded code in the NAND driver. > > > > What's more likely to happen is #3 or #4, and I think the NAND > > maintainer would be fine with both. > > > > Note that the NAND subsystem is full of unmaintained legacy drivers, so > > every time we see someone who could help us get rid or update one of > > them we have to take this opportunity. > Agreed!, Thank you very much for the suggestions and clear inputs. > To proceed further, can you please share your inputs to dividing the tasks > and patches to be sent if possible. Let's start with the new version you were about to post. We'll see how we can merge both drivers based on that.
