[PATCH] NAND: add support for reading ONFI parameters from NAND device

[Florian Fainelli]

Hi Brian,

On Thursday 29 July 2010 01:38:01 Brian Norris wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/nand.h b/include/linux/mtd/nand.h
> > index a81b185..ad7f58f 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mtd/nand.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mtd/nand.h
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > @@ -190,6 +194,9 @@ typedef enum {
> > 
> >   /* Device behaves just like nand, but is readonly */
> >   #define NAND_ROM		0x00000800
> > 
> > +/* Chip supports ONFI */
> > +#define NAND_ONFI		0x00001000
> 
> I've been wondering: how independent are the flags in
> include/linux/mtd/bbm.h and nand.h? I've working on some patches dealing
> with various such flags. For instance, I know that the following patch
> dealt with a potential conflict between flags in bbm.h and nand.h:
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2010-June/030703.html
> 
> I don't know if there's a possibility of conflict between NAND_BBT_WRITE
> (bbm.h) and your new NAND_ONFI (nand.h); both are 0x00001000. I know
> *some* options are written into nand_chip->options and later copied onto
> the options in nand_bbt_descr->options for BBT usage, e.g., I just rewrote
> part of this as a new function nand_create_default_bbt_descr() in
> nand_bbt.c:
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2010-July/030911.html
> 
> Other pieces of the code perform similar functions at the moment.

I admit I did not look too closely at these recent changes, but it seems safe 
to move the NAND_ONFI a bit higher. I will take the other comments and respin 
the patch. Thanks!
--
Florian