On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 08:35:42AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:28:10AM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote: > > On 02.12.2014 01:38, Huang Shijie wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 10:58:17AM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote: > > >> On 30.11.2014 16:42, Huang Shijie wrote: > > >>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:53:26PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote: > > >>>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:40:50AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote: > > >>>>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 08:01:41AM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote: > > >>>>>> On 28.11.2014 02:48, Huang Shijie wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 03:18:49PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote: > > >>>>>>>> This sentence "We support only one NAND chip now" is not true any more. > > >>>>>>>> Multiple chips are supported. So lets remove this sentence to not > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The gpmi can only supports one chip. Of course, there are maybe two dies > > >>>>>>> in this single chip. [...] > If your test result can prove that the gpmi can support two chips. > > I can ack this patch. (I ever thought the gpmi needs an extra patch to > support the multiple chips) > > > > > > I even did not have enough time to test the "two chips on a die" case very carefully before > > > I left freescale. > > > > I see. Thanks for the hint. But this "two chips on a die" scenario did > > pass some basic tests, no? > yes. It passed the bonnie++ test. If there are no more concrete objections, I'll apply this patch. Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
