Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] mtd: rawnand: Rename a NAND chip option

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:54:59 +0200
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 29 Apr
> 2020 18:36:42 +0200:
> 
> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:32:31 +0200
> > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:22:00 +0200
> > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >     
> > > > Hi Boris,
> > > > 
> > > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 29 Apr
> > > > 2020 18:08:16 +0200:
> > > >       
> > > > > On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:55:32 +0200
> > > > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >         
> > > > > > NAND controller drivers can set the NAND_USE_BOUNCE_BUFFER flag to a
> > > > > > chip 'option' field. With this flag, the core is responsible of
> > > > > > providing DMA-able buffers.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The current behavior is to not force the use of a bounce buffer when
> > > > > > the core thinks this is not needed. So in the end the name is a bit
> > > > > > misleading, because in theory we will always have a DMA buffer but in
> > > > > > practice it will not always be a bounce buffer.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Rename this flag NAND_USE_DMA_BUFFER to be more accurate.          
> > > > > 
> > > > > I still think this one should be named NAND_CONTROLLER_USES_DMA.        
> > > > 
> > > > Actually I want to rework all the flags and prefix them with
> > > > NAND_CONTROLLER, that's why I am keeping the NAND_ prefix. I can change
> > > > the _USE_DMA_BUFFER into _USES_DMA though.      
> > > 
> > > Ack on NAND_USES_DMA.    
> > 
> > But then I wonder if it's really worth renaming this field now if you
> > plan to rename it again later :-).  
> 
> Hehe, well, it "fixes" the meaning of the flag, later changes will only
> be "cosmetic" :)
> 
> Saying we "use a bounce buffer" is not accurate as the code first checks
> if the buffer is compliant with DMA constraints, and uses a bounce
> buffer only if it is not.

I'm not questioning the need to fix the macro name, just the need to do
it twice. Anyway, it's not a big deal if you think it's necessary to do
it in 2 steps.

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