Re: [PATCH 00/11] mtd: nand_bbt: introduce independent nand BBT

From: Peter Pan
Date: Mon Mar 28 2016 - 04:20:32 EST

Hi Ezequiel,

Sorry for reply your mail late. And thaks a lot for reviewing it.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Ezequiel Garcia
<ezequiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello,
> On 13 March 2016 at 23:47, Peter Pan <peterpansjtu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Sorry for send the v3 out late. I went through a busy time in the past
>> two month.
>> 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).
>> Below is mtd folder structure we want:
>> drivers/mtd/nand/<all-nand-core-code>
>> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/<raw-nand-controller-drivers>
>> drivers/mtd/nand/spi/<spi-nand-code>
>> drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/<onenand-code>
>> drivers/mtd/nand/chips/<manufacturer-spcific-code>
> You mention this structure, but nothing in the current patchset is actually
> enforcing it. This is more the future direction we are going.

Yes, this is what we want.
>> Most of the patch is borrowed from Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx>.
>> I decided the authorship of each patch by contribution. Please let me know if
>> there is something unproper.
>> Based on Brian's suggestion and Boris's comments, I make 11 independent
>> patches. Previous patch is
>> After discussion with Boris and Ezequiel, I realized above structure is better,
>> so I drop the patch to move nand_bbt.c to mtd folder.
> I have reviewed this patchset, and it looks mostly good to me. I can
> spot trivial style comments, or comments related to the commit logs, or the
> way commits are splitted.
> Boris will probably have more insightful comments to make.
> However, before starting my silly bikeshedding I'd like to know if we all
> agree with the patchset's overall scheme.
> It would be good to finally move forward with this, to take mt29f out
> of staging and also support other SPI NAND vendors.

Yes. We plan to move mt29f_spi_nand out from staging. But because mt29f_spi_nand
is under raw/parallel NAND framework, it mismatch the stucture we
want. Rewite it
under SPI NAND framework may be a better choice, right? Actually I'm
working on this

Peter Pan