Tony, > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Lindgren [mailto:tony@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 3:49 PM > To: Ghorai, Sukumar > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] omap3 gpmc: functionality enhancement > > * Sukumar Ghorai <s-ghorai@xxxxxx> [100604 10:34]: > > few functions added in gpmc module and to be used by other drivers like > NAND. > > E.g.: - ioctl function > > - ecc functions > > Uhh, let's leave out ioctl from the description.. Otherwise people > think you're adding new ioctls in this patch. [Ghorai] I am agree. > > > @@ -46,8 +46,9 @@ > > #define GPMC_ECC_CONFIG 0x1f4 > > #define GPMC_ECC_CONTROL 0x1f8 > > #define GPMC_ECC_SIZE_CONFIG 0x1fc > > +#define GPMC_ECC1_RESULT 0x200 > > > > -#define GPMC_CS0 0x60 > > +#define GPMC_CS0_BASE 0x60 > > #define GPMC_CS_SIZE 0x30 > > > > #define GPMC_MEM_START 0x00000000 > > Why changing GPMC_CS0 to GPMC_CS0_BASE? Should it rather be > GPMC_CS0_OFFSET? [Ghorai] I am agree with your input. > > > @@ -419,8 +437,100 @@ void gpmc_cs_free(int cs) > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(gpmc_cs_free); > > > > /** > > + * gpmc_hwcontrol - hardware specific access (read/ write) control > > + * @cs: chip select number > > + * @cmd: command type > > + * @write: 1 for write; 0 for read > > + * @wval: value to write > > + * @rval: read pointer > > + */ > > +int gpmc_hwcontrol(int cs, int cmd, int write, int wval, int *rval) > > +{ > > + u32 regval = 0; > > + > > + if (!write && !rval) > > + return -EINVAL; > > You pass int write, then return immediately if it's not set? [Ghorai] This is just to check if argument passed correctly either for read or write functionally to do. We can remove this checking. > > > + switch (cmd) { > > + case GPMC_STATUS_BUFFER: > > + regval = gpmc_read_reg(GPMC_STATUS); > > + /* 1 : buffer is available to write */ > > + *rval = regval & GPMC_STATUS_BUFF_EMPTY; > > + break; > > + > > + case GPMC_GET_SET_IRQ_STATUS: > > + if (write) > > + gpmc_write_reg(GPMC_IRQSTATUS, wval); > > + else > > + *rval = gpmc_read_reg(GPMC_IRQSTATUS); > > + break; > > + > > + case GPMC_PREFETCH_FIFO_CNT: > > + regval = gpmc_read_reg(GPMC_PREFETCH_STATUS); > > + *rval = GPMC_PREFETCH_STATUS_FIFO_CNT(regval); > > + break; > > + > > + case GPMC_PREFETCH_COUNT: > > + regval = gpmc_read_reg(GPMC_PREFETCH_STATUS); > > + *rval = GPMC_PREFETCH_STATUS_COUNT(regval); > > + break; > > + > > + case GPMC_CONFIG_WP: > > + regval = gpmc_read_reg(GPMC_CONFIG); > > + if (wval) > > + regval &= ~GPMC_CONFIG_WRITEPROTECT; /* WP is ON */ > > + else > > + regval |= GPMC_CONFIG_WRITEPROTECT; /* WP is OFF */ > > + gpmc_write_reg(GPMC_CONFIG, regval); > > + break; > > + > > + case GPMC_CONFIG_RDY_BSY: > > + regval = gpmc_cs_read_reg(cs, GPMC_CS_CONFIG1); > > + regval |= WR_RD_PIN_MONITORING; > > + gpmc_cs_write_reg(cs, GPMC_CS_CONFIG1, regval); > > + break; > > + > > + case GPMC_CONFIG_DEV_SIZE: > > + regval = gpmc_cs_read_reg(cs, GPMC_CS_CONFIG1); > > + regval |= GPMC_CONFIG1_DEVICESIZE(wval); > > + gpmc_cs_write_reg(cs, GPMC_CS_CONFIG1, regval); > > + break; > > + > > + case GPMC_CONFIG_DEV_TYPE: > > + regval = gpmc_cs_read_reg(cs, GPMC_CS_CONFIG1); > > + regval |= GPMC_CONFIG1_DEVICETYPE(wval); > > + if (wval == GPMC_DEVICETYPE_NOR) > > + regval |= GPMC_CONFIG1_MUXADDDATA; > > + gpmc_cs_write_reg(cs, GPMC_CS_CONFIG1, regval); > > + break; > > + > > + case GPMC_NAND_COMMAND: > > + gpmc_cs_write_byte(cs, GPMC_CS_NAND_COMMAND, wval); > > + break; > > + > > + case GPMC_NAND_ADDRESS: > > + gpmc_cs_write_byte(cs, GPMC_CS_NAND_ADDRESS, wval); > > + break; > > + > > + case GPMC_NAND_DATA: > > + if (write) > > + gpmc_cs_write_byte(cs, GPMC_CS_NAND_DATA, wval); > > + else > > + *rval = gpmc_cs_read_byte(cs, GPMC_CS_NAND_DATA); > > + break; > > + > > + default: > > + printk(KERN_ERR "gpmc_hwcontrol: Not supported\n"); > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(gpmc_hwcontrol); > > You should just replace this function with simple functions like we > already > have in gpmc.c rather than trying to pack everything into one function. > Just add various gpmc_xxx_get/set functions rather than pass int *rval. [Ghorai] So I was having the same query very 1st time. So we need to implement 15 separate functions to do the same as you suggested. And in my approach it's very easy to enhance the functionally in future, say to add new set/get. E.g. we need the similar cleanup for OneNAND code too. So, would you please confirm once again with one is the best and should follow? > > Regards, > > Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
