linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mtd: rawnand: Add NAND controller support on Intel LGM SoC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 17 Apr 2020 13:10:43 +0800
From:   "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX" 
        <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
Cc:     Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
        anders.roxell@...aro.org, arnd@...db.de, brendanhiggins@...gle.com,
        cheol.yong.kim@...el.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        masonccyang@...c.com.tw, miquel.raynal@...tlin.com,
        piotrs@...ence.com, qi-ming.wu@...el.com, richard@....at,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, vigneshr@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mtd: rawnand: Add NAND controller support on Intel
 LGM SoC

Hi Andy,

On 16/4/2020 7:32 pm, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 01:17:25PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 18:40:53 +0800
>> "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX"
>> <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@...ux.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.
> I agree. I tried to convince them internally... but here we are.

Agreed,  will do the changes as Boris and Martin suggested, Thanks!

Regards
Vadivel