> > The default nand_read_subpage implementation returns -ENOSUPP, so if > > you use a large nand chip without a specific read_subpage > > implementation the read operations will always fail. > > > > This functionaliy can be restored when a proper nand_read_subpage is > > implemented for the default driver. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tjalling Hattink <t.hattink@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 4 ---- > > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > > b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c index 54d8ba3..bfd695b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > > @@ -3562,10 +3562,6 @@ int nand_scan_tail(struct mtd_info *mtd) > > /* Invalidate the pagebuffer reference */ > > chip->pagebuf = -1; > > > > - /* Large page NAND with SOFT_ECC should support subpage reads > */ > > - if ((chip->ecc.mode == NAND_ECC_SOFT) && (chip->page_shift > > 9)) > > - chip->options |= NAND_SUBPAGE_READ; > > - > > Only barebox nand_read_subpage returns -ENOSUPP. The kernel has a > default implementation. Wouldn't it be possible (and better) to just > remove the return -ENOSUPP from nand_read_subpage and use the code > which we already have? > > Sascha > Hi Sascha, I will remove the ENOSUPP return code and compare the code with the kernel and test it. I'll publish a new patch if I have results (which is probably upcoming Friday). I still wonder though why this -ENOSUPP return is added in the first place. The motivation written above it is somewhat unclear to me: "Currently we have no users in barebox, so disable this for now" Kind regards, Tjalling Hattink _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
