[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAN8TOE9P5Op-GK6U10g2b5MGvUQOPAS=5wRY0Hx55riW7OGHiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 14:24:17 -0700
From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To: Huang Shijie <b32955@...escale.com>
Cc: "Gupta, Pekon" <pekon@...com>,
"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dedekind1@...il.com" <dedekind1@...il.com>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 5/9] mtd: replace the hardcode with the onfi_feature()
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Huang Shijie <b32955@...escale.com> wrote:
> 于 2013年05月02日 14:17, Gupta, Pekon 写道:
>
>> [Pekon]: onfi_feature() is actually not useful unless someone re-scans the
>
> I do not think so. :)
>
> I think the onfi_feature() is useful in the future.
> I only add the two feauture for this helper:
> [1] 16-bit and
> [2] extended parameter page
>
> But in actually, we may add more feature to this helper, such as
> _synchronous_.
> For example, some driver may support the synchronous mode for the ONFI nand.
> We can use this onfi_feature() in the driver to check if the onfi nand
> supports this
> synchronous feature.
>
> Add this helper makes the code more readable, though we introduce a little
> redandancy.
I agree with the thoughts here. Readability and reusability are
improved a bit by including the ONFI version check.
(BTW, I haven't forgotten this series. I had some distractions here. I
will fully test and provide my Reviewed-by/Tested-by eventually...)
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists