From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752494AbbH2LL4 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 29 Aug 2015 07:11:56 -0400
Received: from smtp02.smtpout.orange.fr ([80.12.242.124]:42735 "EHLO
	smtp.smtpout.orange.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751703AbbH2LLy (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 29 Aug 2015 07:11:54 -0400
X-ME-Helo: belgarion
X-ME-Auth: amFyem1pay5yb2JlcnRAb3JhbmdlLmZy
X-ME-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 13:11:53 +0200
X-ME-IP: 109.222.68.49
From: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>
To: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar>
Cc: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
        "linux-mtd\@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: pxa3xx-nand: prevent DFI bus lockup on removal
References: <1440356741-24308-1-git-send-email-robert.jarzmik@free.fr>
	<20150824150847.GA8497@laptop.cereza> <87io8435q4.fsf@belgarion.home>
	<CAAEAJfDCUGDbssCkQEazcJLuvJWjbSxKDix9ts4peSZ8Xk1ZOA@mail.gmail.com>
X-URL: http://belgarath.falguerolles.org/
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 13:07:28 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAAEAJfDCUGDbssCkQEazcJLuvJWjbSxKDix9ts4peSZ8Xk1ZOA@mail.gmail.com>
	(Ezequiel Garcia's message of "Fri, 28 Aug 2015 19:46:09 -0300")
Message-ID: <87pp261hfz.fsf@belgarion.home>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar> writes:

> Robert,
>
> On 24 August 2015 at 15:24, Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> wrote:
>> Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar> writes:
>>
>>> Should we worry about having two definitions for the same bit?
>>> Would it be too ugly to mix the two meaning? Something like this:
>>>
>>> /* This bit has two different meanings on NFCv1 and NFCv2 */
>>> #define NDCR_STOP_ON_UNCOR_ARB_CNTL (0x1 << 19)
>> I don't find that very pretty, but if you want I can put that in the patch
>> instead.
>>
>
> Yeah, it's far from pretty.
>
> OK, another idea. How about this:
>
> #define NFCV2_NDCR_STOP_ON_UNCOR (0x1 << 19)
> #define NFCV1_NDCR_ARB_CNTL      (0x1 << 19)
This one looks much more prettier, I'll take it.

> That'll work. Feel free to send a v2.
Okay, I'm on my way.

Cheers.

-- 
Robert