[PATCH 01/20] mtd: pxa3xx_nand: refuse the flash definition get from platform

[Mike Rapoport]

Lei Wen wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> 
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Mike Rapoport <mike at compulab.co.il> wrote:
>> Hi Lei,
>>
>> Lei Wen wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>> 2) I don't like hadrcoding of NAND parameters into the driver. You remove
>> *deprecetad* CONFIG_MTD_NAND_PXA3xx_BUILTIN configuration option and instead
>> you enforce use of built-in definitions. The driver in its current state is
>> robust enough to allow platforms to define optimized NAND timings either in
>> the bootloader or in the kernel. If you don't like that multiple platforms
>> define the same flash chip create an enumeration of built-in types and let
>> platforms to use this enumeration to select the NAND chip. But, anyway,
>> there should be a fallback mode that will support NAND chips that are not
>> defined in the driver, probably with suboptimal timings.
> 
> Original driver also use hardcoding. And in bootloader, this timing
> parameter is also hard coding.
> We cannot deduce a parameter set only from the nand id, that is why we
> need a table to preset it.
> If one nand chip is not listed in that table, the chip id would still
> be printed out, so that we can do something for that.
> If we encourage people to continue on this, we would not able to
> really "driver" that nand.

Currently pxa3xx-nand has three operational modes:
- use NAND parameters supplied by the platform
- use presets configured by the bootloader chain
- use built-in NAND parameters, marked as deprecated in favor of the 
first two
You remove the first two modes completely and require that each and 
every NAND chip used on pxa3xx based platform will be added to the 
driver. This way you make the driver less robust and harder to use for 
platform developers, not mentioning you're breaking the existing platforms.
In my opinion, the driver *may* support built-in definitions for certain 
NAND flashes and *must* support configuration of the NAND parameters by 
the platform code and bootloader.

> As I said, different nand chip may have different requirement. And in
> bootloader and kernel, may have different requirement
> of timing parameter.
> 
> 
>> 3) The functions prepare_command_pool and alloc_nand_resource seem overgrown
>> too me. Consolidation of prepare_*_cmd into one huge function does not seem
>> right. And mixing between resource allocation and mtd struct initialization
>> does not seem right either.
> 
> The reason why I consolidate those prepare_*_cmd into one is for if
> separate into several functions, it would create many code
> duplication.
> And with one function, the code execution path would be always one
> way. This would greatly promote the code quality, for the same code
> path is run by many commands in the same time. If not by this, some
> errors may not be discovered in the first time...
> 
> Thanks,
> Lei


-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.