Re: [PATCH 06/15] mtd: rawnand: Add nand_[de]select_target() helpers

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:06:41 +0100
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Mon, 29 Oct 2018
> 14:57:27 +0100:
> 
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 14:39:24 +0100
> > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Mon, 29 Oct 2018
> > > 14:36:47 +0100:
> > >     
> > > > Hi Boris,
> > > > 
> > > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Tue, 23 Oct 2018
> > > > 20:50:02 +0200:
> > > >       
> > > > > Add a wrapper to prevent drivers and core code from directly calling
> > > > > the ->select_chip hook which we are about to deprecate.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/mtd/nand/raw/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c |  23 +++--
> > > > >  drivers/mtd/nand/raw/jz4740_nand.c         |   4 +-
> > > > >  drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c           | 114 ++++++++++++++-------
> > > > >  drivers/mtd/nand/raw/r852.c                |   4 +-
> > > > >  include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h                |   4 +
> > > > >  5 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
> > > > >         
> > > > 
> > > > So far I am glad to see all these changes.
> > > > 
> > > > About the ->select_chip() removal, I wonder if it would not be better
> > > > to also change the local variables "chipnr" or "chip_number" (or
> > > > even "i") that suggest that this ID selects a chip, while it
> > > > actually selects a die in a chip (and it is possible to have multiple
> > > > die on a chip, so multiple CS for one single NAND chip).    
> > 
> > I agree.
> >   
> > > > 
> > > > Do you think it is worth the change ? If yes, would it fit in this patch
> > > > or is it better to do this change elsewhere?
> > > >       
> > > 
> > > This request actually applies to the following patches as well. Maybe we
> > > could even find a uniform way to name it, "die_nr" or something like
> > > this?    
> > 
> > Target is the name used in the ONFI spec, hence the function names.
> > Note that die is not accurate since you might have several dies exposed
> > through a single CS line (that's called LUNs).  
> 
> I'm completely fine with the rename of the functions being now
> <nfc>_select_target().
> 
> What about renaming local variables -when relevant- as lun_nr? lun?
> lun_idx?

Nope, a LUN is a logically selection-able die, while a target is a
physically selection-able one. We should rename the vars/args target or
cs, not lun.

> 
> Do you think it should be done in place in these patches or as a
> separate change?

I think it should be done separately.

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/