[PATCH] mtd: nand: stm_nand_bch: add new driver

[Boris BREZILLON]

Hi Brian,

On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 16:52:22 -0700
Brian Norris <computersforpeace at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:05:22AM +0200, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 17:22:37 -0700 Brian Norris <computersforpeace at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:20:05AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > +	nand_timing0: nand-timing {
> > > > +		sig-setup	= <10>;
> > > > +		sig-hold	= <10>;
> > > > +		CE-deassert	= <0>;
> > > > +		WE-to-RBn	= <100>;
> > > > +		wr-on		= <10>;
> > > > +		wr-off		= <30>;
> > > > +		rd-on		= <10>;
> > > > +		rd-off		= <30>;
> > > > +		chip-delay	= <30>;		/* delay in us */
> > > > +	};
> > > 
> > > You didn't document any of this node. And I don't think we want to
> > > specify every single timing parameter in DT; it may make sense to use
> > > Boris Brezillon's approach (I note this further down, in the driver
> > > code) for mapping non-ONFI NAND timings into a compatible ONFI timing
> > > mode. This will greatly simplify the bindings needed, since it's
> > > standardized and auto-detectable in many cases.
> > 
> > 
> > AFAIR, the NAND timing representation for non-ONFI chips question was
> > left unanswered:
> > 
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/20/581
> > 
> > I can definitely respin my NAND timings series, but I'd like to be sure
> > this is how you want it done before doing so.
> 
> Can we start by supporting ONFI-only (or ONFI-only, plus entries in
> nand_flash_ids[]), and have nand_base provide the translation so drivers
> can retrieve the info? Then we can begin supporting new drivers like
> Lee's, and worry about the DT question separately.

So, basically, I just send a new series with patch 1 and 2 from my sunxi
NAND series [1] (including the fixes you suggested, of course), right ?

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.hardware.netbook.arm.sunxi/7977



-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com