[PATCH] S5PV310: Define the OneNAND platform and interrupt definition

[Kukjin Kim]

Kyungmin Park wrote:
> 
> From: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park at samsung.com>
> 
> s5pc210(aka S5PV310) has same OneNAND controller as s5pc110.
> 
> It's against the Kukjin's latest s5pv310 tree.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park at samsung.com>
> ---

Hmm...as I said to MyungJoo just now, it would be helpful if you could make
patchset not each patch.
Because your 3 OneNAND patches are for support S5PC210 OneNAND...and there
are some dependencies each other.

>  arch/arm/mach-s5pv310/include/mach/irqs.h |    2 ++
>  arch/arm/plat-s5p/dev-onenand.c           |   19 ++++++++++++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s5pv310/include/mach/irqs.h b/arch/arm/mach-
> s5pv310/include/mach/irqs.h
> index 56885ca..f7fb2b8 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-s5pv310/include/mach/irqs.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s5pv310/include/mach/irqs.h
> @@ -66,6 +66,8 @@
> 
>  #define IRQ_IIC			COMBINER_IRQ(27, 0)
> 
> +#define IRQ_ONENAND_AUDI	COMBINER_IRQ(34, 0)
> +
>  /* Set the default NR_IRQS */
>  #define NR_IRQS
> 	COMBINER_IRQ(MAX_COMBINER_NR, 0)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-s5p/dev-onenand.c
b/arch/arm/plat-s5p/dev-onenand.c
> index 00facbe..8d191c5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/plat-s5p/dev-onenand.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-s5p/dev-onenand.c
> @@ -29,11 +29,17 @@ static struct resource s5pc110_onenand_resources[] = {
>  	},
>  	[1] = {
>  		.start	= S5PC110_PA_ONENAND_DMA,
> -		.end	= S5PC110_PA_ONENAND_DMA + SZ_2K - 1,
> +		.end	= S5PC110_PA_ONENAND_DMA + SZ_8K - 1,
>  		.flags	= IORESOURCE_MEM,
>  	},
> +	[2] = {
> +		.start	= IRQ_ONENAND_AUDI,
> +		.end	= IRQ_ONENAND_AUDI,

Hmm...according to your first patch, always compile this file in plat-s5p...
But other S5P SoCs don't have IRQ_ONENAND_AUDI definition...:-(

Please make sure your patch doesn't any problem before submitting.

> +		.flags	= IORESOURCE_IRQ,
> +	},
>  };
> 
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_S5PV210
>  struct platform_device s5pc110_device_onenand = {
>  	.name		= "s5pc110-onenand",
>  	.id		= -1,
> @@ -50,3 +56,14 @@ void s5pc110_onenand_set_platdata(struct
> onenand_platform_data *pdata)
>  		printk(KERN_ERR "%s: no memory for platform data\n",
> __func__);
>  	s5pc110_device_onenand.dev.platform_data = pd;
>  }
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_S5PV310
> +/* Note that S5PC210(aka S5PV310) has same OneNAND controller as s5pc110
*/

So...why did you separate s5pc110_device_onenand and
s5pc210_device_onenand...
I think just s5p_device_onenand is enough..

> +struct platform_device s5pc210_device_onenand = {
> +	.name		= "s5pc110-onenand",
> +	.id		= -1,
> +	.num_resources	= ARRAY_SIZE(s5pc110_onenand_resources),
> +	.resource	= s5pc110_onenand_resources,
> +};
> +#endif
> --
Hmm...I wonder that should be separated S5PC110(S5PV210) and
S5PC210(S5PV310)


Thanks.

Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim at samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.