[PATCH 0/3] An alternative to SPI NAND

[Qi Wang 王起 (qiwang)]

On 01/20/2015 6:36 PM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>
>On 01/12/2015 12:10 PM, Qi Wang 王起 (qiwang) wrote:
>> Hi Ezequiel,
>>
>> On 01/08/2015 11:27 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Qi Wang,
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2015 11:45 PM, Qi Wang 王起 (qiwang) wrote:
>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 9:03:24AM +0000, Brian Norris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 12:47:24AM +0000, Peter Pan 潘栋 (peterpandong)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/spi-nand.txt |   22 +
>>>>>> drivers/mtd/Kconfig                                |    2 +
>>>>>> drivers/mtd/Makefile                               |    1 +
>>>>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nand/Kconfig                       |    7 +
>>>>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nand/Makefile                      |    3 +
>>>>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nand/spi-nand-base.c               | 2034
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nand/spi-nand-bbt.c                | 1279
>++++++++++++
>>>>>
>>>>> I can already tell by the diffstat that I don't like this. We probably
>>>>> don't need 3000 new lines of code for this, but we especially don't
>want
>>>>> to duplicate nand_bbt.c. It won't take a lot of work to augment
>>>>> nand_bbt.c to make it shareable. (I can whip that patch up if needed.)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I agree with you, Nand_bbt.c do can be shared by Parallel NAND and
>>>> SPI NAND. Actually, we are working at this now. Will send patches to
>you
>>>> Once we finished it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the quick submission!
>>>
>>> However, Brian is right, this code duplication is a no go.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a more valid approach would be to first identify the code that
>>> needs to be shared in nand_bbt.c and nand_base.c, and export those
>>> symbols (or maybe do the required refactor).
>>
>> Yes, I agree Brian's suggestion in another mail.
>>
>> " The BBT code is something we definitely want to share, but it's
>actually
>> not very closely tied to nand_base.c, and it looks pretty easy to adapt
>> to any MTD that implements mtd_read_oob()/mtd_write_oob(). We'd just
>> need to parameterize a few relevant device details into a new nand_bbt
>> struct, rather than using struct nand_chip directly."
>>
>> To abstract a new nand_bbt struct instead of nand_chip to make SPI NAND
>> and parallel NAND can share nand_bbt.c file, I already begin to work on
>> this.
>>
>> For code shared in nand_base.c, I agree it would be better if we can find
>> a good method to share nand_base.c code between spi nand and parallel
>nand.
>> But frankly speaking, I'm not satisfied for the remap command method.
>This
>> method make code difficult to maintain when SPI NAND and Parallel NAND
>> evolve much differently in the future.
>>
>> Take some example,
>> If one new command (cache operation, multiple plane operation)
>implemented
>> in parallel NAND code, and is used in nand_read or nand_write, that will
>> cause maintainer to modify SPI NAND code to remap this new command,
>though
>> this modification probably could be slight. That means modification on
>> Parallel NAND flash need to consider SPI NAND as well.
>>
>> How do you think about this?
>>
>> For Peter Pan's patchset, if we do some modification to make nand_bbt.c
>to
>> make it shareable for Parallel and SPI NAND. The code line should be 2000.
>> I believe I can review this spi-nand-base.c to remove some redundant code
>> that may hundreds line. Is 1700 or 1800 code line is more acceptable?
>>
>> Let me know your opinions.
>>
>
>Sounds good.
>
>Do you still plan to maintain the spi-nand-base.c and spi-nand-device.c
>separation?	

Yes, still plan to maintain the spi-nand-base.c and spi-nand-device.c
separation. Abstract common code to spi-nand-base.c, and spi-nand-device.c is
used for realize the different function for different SPI NAND, such as ecc
layout, read ID etc.

Thanks
--
Qi Wang