atmel_nand pmecc on 8k page [RFC]

Bo Shen voice.shen at
Wed Jun 18 22:27:42 PDT 2014

Hi Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD,

On 06/19/2014 12:31 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 15:19 Mon 16 Jun     , Bo Shen wrote:
>> Hi Matteo,
>> On 06/13/2014 08:48 PM, Matteo Fortini wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> glad you found my patch useful. Sascha rejected it because he sees it
>>> more fit to separate the initialization of sama5d3 and sam9 since they
>>> are quite different.
>>> I started, as advised by Sascha, to create into sam9_smc.c the function
>>> void sama5d3_smc_configure(int id, int cs, struct sama5d3_smc_config
>>> *config)
>>> but this brings on some other changes to keep the same structure of
>>> functions,  i.e. we would need to implement
>>> static void sama5d3_smc_cs_configure(void __iomem *base, struct
>>> sama5d3_smc_config *config)
>>> and all the related functions, since the argument changes from struct
>>> sam9_smc_config * to struct sama5d3_smc_config *
>>> Now I'm asking you all for a comment: should we go ahead and create a
>>> new sama5d3_smc.c file with all the functions (some will unfortunately
>>> be a duplicate of those present in sam9_smc.c), or should I do a partial
>>> hack to insert sama5d3 specific functions into sam9_smc.c (like, for
>>> example, playing with config structures so that the sam9 one is just the
>>> head of the sama5d3)?
>> I think we'd better to create a new sama5d3_smc.c. This will be more
>> readable, and also benefit for the new coming SoC.
> that was raised on the kernel the sam9 & sama5 does does share the IP the a5
> just have more features

After I search the latest Linux kernel code, I don't find the related 
information, can you be more specific? A link or some reference code 
will be better.

> Best Regards,
> J.

Best Regards,
Bo Shen

More information about the barebox mailing list