| Message ID | 1328011843-7402-1-git-send-email-w.sang@pengutronix.de |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 5289966ea576a062b80319975b31b661c196ff9d |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de> wrote: > This has been moved from .options to .bbt_options meanwhile. So, it > currently checks for something totally different (NAND_OWN_BUFFERS) and > decides according to that. > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de> > Cc: Huang Shijie <b32955@freescale.com> > --- > > Artem: NAND_OWN_BUFFERS should not get set, so no danger. But I'd think we > should add the stable tag nonetheless if Huang is fine with this change. Acked-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> And the "stable" tag is probably good, since the "options" -> "bbt_options" split was a few releases ago. I guess I missed this one. Also, you might note that there are some changes in progress with the default NAND "block_markbad" routine, which you may or may not want to reflect in the overriding "gpmi_block_markbad" routine eventually. Brian
于 2012年01月31日 20:10, Wolfram Sang 写道: > This has been moved from .options to .bbt_options meanwhile. So, it > currently checks for something totally different (NAND_OWN_BUFFERS) and > decides according to that. > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de> > Cc: Huang Shijie <b32955@freescale.com> > --- > > Artem: NAND_OWN_BUFFERS should not get set, so no danger. But I'd think we > should add the stable tag nonetheless if Huang is fine with this change. > > drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c > index 493ec2f..f39f83e 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c > @@ -1124,7 +1124,7 @@ static int gpmi_block_markbad(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs) > chip->bbt[block >> 2] |= 0x01 << ((block & 0x03) << 1); > > /* Do we have a flash based bad block table ? */ > - if (chip->options & NAND_BBT_USE_FLASH) > + if (chip->bbt_options & NAND_BBT_USE_FLASH) > ret = nand_update_bbt(mtd, ofs); > else { > chipnr = (int)(ofs >> chip->chip_shift); Acked-by: Huang Shijie <b32955@freescale.com> I noticed this too. thanks a lot. Huang Shijie
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 13:10 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > This has been moved from .options to .bbt_options meanwhile. So, it > currently checks for something totally different (NAND_OWN_BUFFERS) and > decides according to that. > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de> > Cc: Huang Shijie <b32955@freescale.com> Pushed to l2-mtd.git, added the following tag: Cc: stable@kernel.org [3.2+]
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c index 493ec2f..f39f83e 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c @@ -1124,7 +1124,7 @@ static int gpmi_block_markbad(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs) chip->bbt[block >> 2] |= 0x01 << ((block & 0x03) << 1); /* Do we have a flash based bad block table ? */ - if (chip->options & NAND_BBT_USE_FLASH) + if (chip->bbt_options & NAND_BBT_USE_FLASH) ret = nand_update_bbt(mtd, ofs); else { chipnr = (int)(ofs >> chip->chip_shift);
This has been moved from .options to .bbt_options meanwhile. So, it currently checks for something totally different (NAND_OWN_BUFFERS) and decides according to that. Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de> Cc: Huang Shijie <b32955@freescale.com> --- Artem: NAND_OWN_BUFFERS should not get set, so no danger. But I'd think we should add the stable tag nonetheless if Huang is fine with this change. drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)