[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/5] NAND: Allow per-buffer allocation

[Marek Vasut]

On Monday, September 26, 2011 08:33:56 PM Scott Wood wrote:
> On 09/24/2011 07:37 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Friday, September 23, 2011 07:35:15 PM Scott Wood wrote:
> >> On 09/22/2011 03:51 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 22, 2011 09:41:21 AM Stefano Babic wrote:
> >>>> On 09/21/2011 10:16 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >>>>> Dear Stefano & Marek,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> can you please provide the requested information?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hi Scott,
> >>>> 
> >>>>> In message <4E7A4145.30501 at freescale.com> Scott Wood wrote:
> >>>>>>> In message <4E7A320D.1030002 at freescale.com> you wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Is this hardware going to be supported in Linux?  It would be nice
> >>>>>>>> if we could keep this code in sync.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Stefano has submitted patches for the iMX28 based M28 / M28EVK
> >>>>>>> board, so yes, this hardware going to be supported in mainline
> >>>>>>> Linux, too.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> How do the Linux iMX28 patches deal with NAND_OWN_BUFFERS?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I'd like to see this change be submitted to Linux first, or else
> >>>>>> have an explanation of why a divergence for U-Boot is warranted.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I tested NAND with the gpmi-nand patches sent to linux-arm by Huang 
Shije:
> >>>> 	http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg139526.html
> >>>> 
> >>>> However, I have not seen the option NAND_OWN_BUFFERS in his patches.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Stefano
> >>> 
> >>> Like I said, this patch is not needed anymore. It's just a convenience
> >>> measure now. I don't need to for mx28.
> >> 
> >> Let's hold off on this patch until it's actually needed, then.
> > 
> > Very well then, mind merging the rest then ?
> 
> Yes, I'll try to get to it soon.

Thanks Scott, and thanks for your patience while reviewing, I know I had my 
moments where I wasn't too nice / was whiny ;-)

Cheers
> 
> -Scott