From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:06:52 -0600
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] mtd: denali: use CONFIG_SYS_NAND_SELF_INIT
In-Reply-To: <1415711151-15237-2-git-send-email-yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
References: <1415711151-15237-1-git-send-email-yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
	<1415711151-15237-2-git-send-email-yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
Message-ID: <1415761612.15957.35.camel@freescale.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 22:05 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> +	/*
> +	 * If CONFIG_SYS_NAND_SELF_INIT is defined, each driver is responsible
> +	 * for instantiating struct nand_chip, while drivers/mtd/nand/nand.c
> +	 * still provides a "struct mtd_info nand_info" instance.
> +	 */
> +	denali->mtd = nand_info;

&nand_info[0] would be clearer.

> +	/*
> +	 * In the future, these base addresses should be taken from
> +	 * Device Tree or platform data.
> +	 */
> +	denali->flash_reg = (void  __iomem *)CONFIG_SYS_NAND_REGS_BASE;
> +	denali->flash_mem = (void  __iomem *)CONFIG_SYS_NAND_DATA_BASE;
> +
> +	return denali_init(denali);
>  }
>  
> -int board_nand_init(struct nand_chip *chip)
> +void board_nand_init(void)
>  {
> -	return denali_nand_init(chip);
> +	__board_nand_init();
>  }

Why do you need this wrapper rather than putting the contents of
__board_nand_init() here?  

Also, you might want to print an error if denali_init() returns an
error, rather than just discarding it (or, make sure denali_init()
prints for error conditions, and have it return void).  I realize that
the existing self-init drivers aren't perfect in this regard. :-)

-Scott