Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:11:56 +0100 | From | Boris Brezillon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] mtd: nand_bbt: introduce independent nand BBT |
| |
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:07:50 -0300 Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar> wrote:
> On 29 December 2015 at 06:35, Boris Brezillon > <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 17:42:50 -0300 > > Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar> wrote: > > > >> This is looking a lot better, thanks for the good work! > >> > >> On 15 December 2015 at 02:59, Peter Pan <peterpansjtu@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Currently nand_bbt.c is tied with struct nand_chip, and it makes other > >> > NAND family chips hard to use nand_bbt.c. Maybe it's the reason why > >> > onenand has own bbt(onenand_bbt.c). > >> > > >> > Separate struct nand_chip from BBT code can make current BBT shareable. > >> > We create struct nand_bbt to take place of nand_chip in nand_bbt.c. > >> > Struct nand_bbt contains all the information BBT needed from outside and > >> > it should be embedded into NAND family chip struct (such as struct nand_chip). > >> > NAND family driver should allocate, initialize and free struct nand_bbt. > >> > > >> > Below is mtd folder structure we want: > >> > mtd > >> > ├── Kconfig > >> > ├── Makefile > >> > ├── ... > >> > ├── nand_bbt.c > >> > >> Hm.. I'm not sure about having nand_bbt.c in drivers/mtd. > >> What's wrong with drivers/mtd/nand ? > > > > I haven't reviewed the series yet, but I agree. If the BBT code is only > > meant to be used on NAND based devices, it should probably stay in > > drivers/mtd/nand. > > > >> > >> In fact, I was thinking we could go further and clean up the directories a bit > >> by separating core code, from controllers code, from SPI NAND code: > >> > >> drivers/mtd/nand/ > >> drivers/mtd/nand/controllers > >> drivers/mtd/nand/spi > >> > >> Makes any sense? > > > > Actually I had the secret plan of moving all (raw) NAND controller > > drivers into the drivers/mtd/nand/controllers directory, though this > > was for a different reason: I'd like to create another directory for > > manufacturer specific code in order to support some advanced features > > on NANDs that do not implement (or only partially implement) the ONFI > > standard. > > > > The separation you're talking about here is more related to the > > interface used to communicate with the NAND chip. > > > > How about using the following hierarchy? > > > > drivers/mtd/nand/<nand-core-code> > > drivers/mtd/nand/interfaces/raw/<raw-nand-core-code> > > drivers/mtd/nand/interfaces/raw/controllers/<raw-nand-controller-drivers> > > drivers/mtd/nand/interfaces/spi/<spi-nand-code> > > drivers/mtd/nand/interfaces/onenand/<onenand-code> > > drivers/mtd/nand/chips/<manufacturer-spcific-code> > > > > What do you think? > > > > I believe we are bikeshedding here, but what the heck. > > That seems too involved. A simpler hierarchy could be clear enough, > and seems to follow what other subsystems do: > > drivers/mtd/nand/<all-nand-core-code> > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/<raw-nand-controller-drivers>
And probably some common logic in there too.
> drivers/mtd/nand/spi/<spi-nand-code> > drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/<onenand-code> > drivers/mtd/nand/chips/<manufacturer-spcific-code> >
I'm fine with this one too ;-).
-- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
| |