[PATCH] mtd/ifc: Add support for IFC controller version 2.0

[Raghav Dogra]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Wood [mailto:oss at buserror.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 6:12 AM
> To: Raghav Dogra <raghav.dogra at nxp.com>; Brian Norris
> <computersforpeace at gmail.com>; Li Yang <leoli at freescale.com>
> Cc: Raghav Dogra <raghav at freescale.com>; linux-mtd at lists.infradead.org;
> linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org>; Prabhakar Kushwaha
> <prabhakar.kushwaha at nxp.com>; Jaiprakash Singh
> <b44839 at freescale.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd/ifc: Add support for IFC controller version 2.0
> 
> On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 06:18 +0000, Raghav Dogra wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Brian Norris [mailto:computersforpeace at gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 1:14 AM
> > > To: Li Yang <leoli at freescale.com>
> > > Cc: Raghav Dogra <raghav at freescale.com>;
> > > linux-mtd at lists.infradead.org; linuxppc-dev
> > > <linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org>; oss at buserror.net; Prabhakar
> > > Kushwaha <prabhakar.kushwaha at nxp.com>; Jaiprakash Singh
> > > <b44839 at freescale.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd/ifc: Add support for IFC controller version
> > > 2.0
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 05:07:16PM -0600, Li Yang wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:36 AM, Raghav Dogra
> > > > <raghav at freescale.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > The new IFC controller version 2.0 has a different memory map page.
> > > > > Upto IFC 1.4 PAGE size is 4 KB and from IFC2.0 PAGE size is 64KB.
> > > > > This patch segregates the IFC global and runtime registers to
> > > > > appropriate PAGE sizes.
> > > >
> > > > If the global registers and the runtime registers are so
> > > > independent that they have to be on different page boundaries, it
> > > > would make more sense for them to be defined as separate reg
> > > > regions in the device tree at the very beginning.  Then we would
> > > > only need to change the device tree now and it would be future proof
> for any page size.
> > >
> > > To be clear: Scott, you were NACK'ing the DT binding change request,
> > > right? I though we had an Ack on the previous revision (that Raghav
> > > failed to carry).
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jaiprakash Singh <b44839 at freescale.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Raghav Dogra <raghav at freescale.com>
> > > >
> > > > The patch cannot apply on latest 4.5-rc cleanly either.
> > > > Otherwise,
> > >
> > > Yeah... neither this patch nor its (allegedly) dependent patch [1]
> > > apply cleanly.
> > >
> > > If you expect me to take this patch via MTD, please rebase to
> > > l2-mtd.git as stated here:
> > >
> > > http://linux-mtd.infradead.org/source.html
> > >
> > I expect Scott to pick this patch, and apply via linuxppc-dev. I will
> > send the patch on based on
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
> > Branch "master"
> 
> Why are you expecting that, for a patch that touches an MTD driver and
> doesn't touch arch/powerpc, and for which I've already given an ack for it to
> go via the MTD tree?

I was expecting that because this patch is dependent on the
"drivers/memory: Add deep sleep support for IFC" patch 
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/582762/ for which an ACK is still pending.
So, till you ACK that patch, Brian won't be able to pick that patch, I guess.
So, I thought you can pick both the patches when an ACK is given to the deep sleep patch.

Anyhow, I have sent the newer version of this patch which is applicable on l2-mtd.git 
But it is still dependent on the deep sleep patch (which is applicable now on l2-mtd.git as well)

-Raghav
> 
> What tree did you use to generate this patch?  If there's stuff in the MTD
> tree that conflicts, that's all the more reason to send it via the MTD tree
> (after rebasing onto it).
> 
> -Scott