Hi Robert, On Wed, 13 May 2020 14:55:01 +0200 Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Hi Robert, > > Mi Miquel, > > >> I hope someone still has a board to test that. > No, unfortunately I don't have this board, nor do I know of anyone having > one. It's the second time I see patches on cmx270, and the question to whether > we shoud keep this board in kernel is still in my mind ... given that cm-x300 is > fully supported and testable, and no one I know has a cm-x2700 ... What's the point of keeping support for a board no one has or no one cares about? I know I don't have my word in this decision, but I would strongly recommend getting rid of it, especially when I see such crappy/unmaintained code lurking around in the drivers/ tree. > > Now for your series, I have 2 comments : > - dsb() : can you explain the rationale of each of the 3 instances I saw > please. I didn't add any dsb(), just copied what was done before. > - the +2 IOMEM offset > I don't like it at all. I don't mind the offset, I disklike the use of > readb() or readw() where before there was a readl().. Same thing for writeb() > against writel(). > > The bus semantics are not the same, the alignment is not the same as well > (and PXA is very old and doesn't cope well with alignment), and without a > proper board to test, I would be very wary to have that change. Well, given the core uses {read,write}{b,w}() [1] to read/write data and this driver doesn't provide its own ->{read_byte,write_buf,read_buf}() implementation, I'd expect things to work just fine if we use byte/word accessors for the rest. This being said, I'm fine switching back to 32bit accessors if that's a hard requirement. Thanks, Boris [1]https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.7-rc5/source/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_legacy.c#L28 ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/