Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mtd: rawnand: Add NAND controller support on Intel LGM SoC | From | "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX" <> | Date | Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:53:59 +0800 |
| |
Hi Boris,
On 17/4/2020 3:02 pm, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 13:21:39 +0800 > "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX" > <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com> wrote: > >> Hi Boris, >> >> On 16/4/2020 7:57 pm, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 19:38:03 +0800 >>> "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX" >>> <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 16/4/2020 7:17 pm, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 18:40:53 +0800 >>>>> "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX" >>>>> <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> we'll be happy to have one more of the existing driver converted to >>>>>>>>> ->exec_op() ;-). >>>>>>>> I have completely adapted to ->exec_op() hook up to replace the legacy >>>>>>>> call-back. >>>>>>> I suspect porting what you've done to the xway driver shouldn't be too >>>>>>> complicated. >>>>>> Not ported from xway_nand.c driver , we have developed from the scratch >>>>>> to make it work on >>>>>> Intel LGM SoC , it's new x86 ATOM based SoC, IP itself completely >>>>>> different and most of the registers won't match. >>>>>> if we port then it would be ugly and also what are the problem may occur >>>>>> we do not know. >>>>> Sorry but IMO they look similar enough to try to merge them. >>>> Thanks! Boris, need suggestion from you since you are maintainer and >>>> also expertise on mtd-subsystem. >>> I *was* the maintainer :). >>> >>>> There are different features involved and lines of code is more, if we >>>> add new driver patches over xway-nand driver >>> How about retro-fitting the xway logic into your driver then? I mean, >>> adding a 100 lines of code to your driver to get rid of the 500+ lines >>> we have in xway_nand.c is still a win. >>> >>>> is completely looks ugly and it may disturb the existing functionality >>>> as well since we don't have platform to validate:'(. >>> How ugly? Can you show us? Maybe we can come with a solution to make it >>> less ugly. >>> >>> As for the testing part, there are 4 scenarios: >>> >>> 1/ Your changes work perfectly fine on older platforms. Yay \o/! >>> 2/ You break the xway driver and existing users notice it before this >>> series gets merged. Now you found someone to validate your changes. >>> 3/ You break the xway driver and none of the existing users notice it >>> before the driver is merged, but they notice it afterwards. Too bad >>> this happened after we've merged the driver, but now you've found >>> someone to help you fix the problem :P. >>> 4/ You break things for old platforms but no one ever complains about >>> it, either because there's no users left or because they never >>> update their kernels. In any case, that's no longer your problem. >>> Someone will remove those old platforms one day and get rid of the >>> unneeded code in the NAND driver. >>> >>> What's more likely to happen is #3 or #4, and I think the NAND >>> maintainer would be fine with both. >>> >>> Note that the NAND subsystem is full of unmaintained legacy drivers, so >>> every time we see someone who could help us get rid or update one of >>> them we have to take this opportunity. >> Agreed!, Thank you very much for the suggestions and clear inputs. >> To proceed further, can you please share your inputs to dividing the tasks >> and patches to be sent if possible. > Let's start with the new version you were about to post. We'll see how > we can merge both drivers based on that.
Thank you very much for the review comments and inputs , will post the patches soon.
Regards Vadivel
| |