[PATCH] ATMEL, AVR32: inline nand partition table access

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 10:05 Mon 06 Jun     , Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> Le 01/06/2011 16:54, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov :
> > On 6/1/11, Hans-Christian Egtvedt <hans-christian.egtvedt at atmel.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2011-05-29 at 17:49 +0400, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
> >>> Currently atmel_nand driver used by AT91 and AVR32 calls a special
> >>> callback
> >>> which return nand partition table and number of partitions. However in all
> >>> boards this callback returns just static data. So drop this callback and
> >>> make atmel_nand use partition table provided statically via platform_data.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Thanks for this update, always nice seeing code being optimized. I
> >> really can't recall why it was made like this in the first place...
> >>
> >> For the AVR32 related parts:
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Hans-Christian Egtvedt <hans-christian.egtvedt at atmel.com>
> >>
> >> <snipp diff>
> >>
> >> Will this go through the linux-mtd tree (since it spans two archs) or
> >> should it go through an arch tree?
> > 
> > On one hand, I'd prefer for this to go through the linux-mtd, if noone objects,
> > as I'd also like to submit several (a pile) patches cleaning up mtd
> > partitioning, which would depend on this.
> > 
> > OTOH, I think there will be a cleanup of AT91 platform, which would bring
> > lot's of conflicts with this patch, if it goes through linux-mtd.
> 
> 
> I am in favor for a mainline inclusion through linux-mtd tree.
> 
> On the AT91 side, we will have to take this inclusion into account to
> avoid merge conflicts... But as long as this cleanup is not ready yet, I
> prefer to go forward this way.
> 
> For that purpose, that would be good to see this patch in linux-next.
agreed

Acked-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com>

Best Regards,
J.