[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5B3F0425-9D7A-4D22-86A0-2E870E25396A@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:18:27 -0600
From: Warner Losh <imp@...imp.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc: Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon.dev@...il.com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, dev@...ux-sunxi.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 04/14] mtd: nand: define struct nand_timings
On Mar 12, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 05:46:53PM +0100, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
>> I'm not a big fan of this name. I think timing structs should not
>> contain onfi in their names, because these timings are also
>> available on non ONFI chips.
>
> Explicitly defering to the ONFI spec makes it clear what the
> definition of the timing parameter actually is.
This is good, since ONFI is a very public spec.
> If JEDEC has a different model then drivers will need to configure
> their interfaces a little differently.
JEDEC’s spec is just a public as ONFI’s, but in the past at least it has been difficult
to get without purchase.
> So we might end up with a jedec_sdr_timings too :|
And onfi_ddr_timings and jedec_ddr_timings since those timing modes are appearing
on shipping parts.
Warner
--
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