From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752117AbdGESS4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jul 2017 14:18:56 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f65.google.com ([74.125.83.65]:32877 "EHLO mail-pg0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751917AbdGESSz (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jul 2017 14:18:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 11:18:52 -0700 From: Brian Norris To: Florian Fainelli Cc: Karl Beldan , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kamal Dasu , Boris Brezillon , Richard Weinberger , David Woodhouse , Marek Vasut , Cyrille Pitchen , Karl Beldan Subject: Re: [PATCH] brcmnand: Fix up the flash cache register offset for older controllers Message-ID: <20170705181852.GA117111@google.com> References: <20170705174653.21797-1-karl.beldan+oss@gmail.com> <7f7804da-e431-f197-31b9-c98359b9151a@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7f7804da-e431-f197-31b9-c98359b9151a@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ha, I was in the middle of writing essentially this :) On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 11:15:01AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 07/05/2017 10:46 AM, Karl Beldan wrote: > > From: Karl Beldan > > > > Tested on BCM{63138,6838,63268} and cross checked with the various > > *_map_part.h which the brcmnand_regs_v* in brcmnand.c have historically > > been derived from. > > BCM63138 is using a 7.0 controller, 6838 uses a 5.0 controller, but has > a separate flash cache register which does indeed end up at 0x400 bytes > off the main FLASH block, and finally 63268 does have a v4.0 controller > and the flash cache is also in a separate register that makes it end up > at 0x400. The joy of arbitrarily-changing IP, since of course business units within a company (or even divisions within the same business unit) would never want to share software... > Your change, as proposed would break chips like 7425 which use 5.0 > controller with the flash cache at 0x200 bytes. > > The binding describes an optional flash-cache register cell that you can > specify, so that's probably what you want to do here? What he said ^^^ The "nand-cache" register range sounds like what you're looking for. Brian