[PATCH v5 3/3] ARM: OMAP2+: onenand: prepare for gpmc driver migration

[Tony Lindgren]

* Jon Hunter <jon-hunter at ti.com> [120628 09:48]:
> 
> [    2.792510] OneNAND driver initializing
> [    2.797576] omap2-onenand omap2-onenand: initializing on CS2, phys base 0x20000000, virtual base c88c0000, freq 0 MHz
> [    2.808929] OneNAND Manufacturer: Samsung (0xec)
> [    2.808990] Muxed OneNAND 256MB 1.8V 16-bit (0x40)
> [    2.814208] OneNAND version = 0x002c
> 
> The above change seems to imply that Tony's n900 is dependent on the bootloader settings
> and not those being set by the kernel. Ideally, we should not need to set the async mode
> in the onenand before we set the onenand timings in the gpmc (per Afzal's changelog
> comment). This appears backwards.

That should not be the case, I'm more likely to believe in Afzal's explanation.
 
> The other thing to note is that the 3430sdp has samsung onenand where as the n900 has
> Numonyx. The gpmc-onenand.c only has one set of settings that it is using for all
> devices. However, it would appear that at least the async settings are not working for
> the Numonyx. Therefore, may be we need to get a dump of Tony's n900 settings and make
> sure the right settings are being used for the appropriate board. 

Hmm I would assume the n900 onenand settings are the most tested settings we have.
And AFAIK have also been tested with L3 frequency scaling. So let's assume they're
mostly right.
 
> These onenand settings are really killing us. I don't want us to have to spend alot
> of time re-calculating this stuff but the way it has been written to begin with is not
> driver friendly. I really wonder if we need to have some sort of callback for the 
> onenand timings from the driver. It is ugly, but the alternative is that someone needs
> to sit down and re-calculate all the timings again to get them into a driver friendly
> format. Furthermore, it seems that onenand is no longer available from the likes of
> samsung and numonyx (micron) so it is hard to justify re-calculating everything again.
> I am not even sure if we have all the datasheets!
> 
> Let me know your thoughts.

I don't think we should spend much time working on the recalculations. Let's rather
use these known working cases as examples. If they don't work, it's likely that
adding any new devices won't work either.

For the timings, we should allow specifying either cycles or time values in the
data struct. And always just use the cycle value directly if specified, and
othewise use the time value. We may be able to limit the registers where we need
to allow either cycle or time value depending on the device futher.

In general, I doubt that we can come up with better calculations. The existing
code pretty well already follows the device spec timings. And using cycle values
for some registers is the right thing to do according to the connected device
specs no matter what the frequency is. In those cases converting from time values
to cycles does not make sense.

Regards,

Tony