[PATCH 1/2] nand: Add Marvell Orion NAND driver
Ezequiel Garcia
ezequiel.garcia at free-electrons.com
Tue Aug 26 09:06:40 PDT 2014
On 26 Aug 04:28 PM, Alexander Aring wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 05:19:22PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > This commit adds NAND support for the controller present in Kirkwood SoCs.
> >
>
> cool! I will test it on my DNS-325 platform, if I find some free time.
>
> Thanks for doing this.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia at free-electrons.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig | 7 ++
> > drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile | 1 +
> > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_orion.c | 162 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 170 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/mtd/nand/nand_orion.c
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig b/drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig
> > index 04fe3c8..ccf1f9c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig
> > @@ -90,6 +90,13 @@ config NAND_OMAP_GPMC
> > Support for NAND flash using GPMC. GPMC is a common memory
> > interface found on Texas Instrument's OMAP platforms
> >
> > +config NAND_ORION
> > + bool
> > + prompt "Orion NAND driver"
> > + depends on ARCH_MVEBU
> > + help
> > + Support for the Orion NAND controller, present in Kirkwood SoCs.
> > +
> > config NAND_ATMEL
> > bool
> > prompt "Atmel (AT91SAM9xxx) NAND driver"
> ...
> > +
> > +static int orion_nand_probe(struct device_d *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct device_node *dev_node = dev->device_node;
> > + struct orion_nand *priv;
> > + struct mtd_info *mtd;
> > + struct nand_chip *chip;
> > + struct clk *clk;
> > + void __iomem *io_base;
> > + int width, ret;
> > + u32 val = 0;
> > +
> > + priv = xzalloc(sizeof(struct orion_nand));
> > + if (!priv) {
> > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > + goto no_res;
> > + }
>
> checking on null with xzalloc isn't needed, if fails we run into panic.
>
Ah, OK.
> > + mtd = &priv->mtd;
> > + chip = &priv->chip;
> > +
> > + io_base = dev_request_mem_region(dev, 0);
> > +
>
> here we should check the return value. I don't know what's now the
> behaviour on dev_request_mem_region if fail returns NULL or ERR_PTR.
> There was some discussion on the list.
>
OK, I'll take a look.
--
Ezequiel García, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com
More information about the barebox
mailing list