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 S1753682AbdJaQUf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:20:35 -0400
Received: from mail-io0-f179.google.com ([209.85.223.179]:54218 "EHLO
        mail-io0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751884AbdJaQUd (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:20:33 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Rjph/x+719hu8g9/9ArBCFLwAjpleGIjuEyJF0A6u/7LEfM9Nlopvh1spxlGSiKIRPRsEXoG98hNPDq2H3kmw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANc+2y5QWNSRf_-oOuU8TYbyVHYrbPqK8+gO=Y56-MMaJp+nZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20171028074351.13118-1-prasannatsmkumar@gmail.com>
 <20171030093426.30827ef5@bbrezillon> <CANc+2y4U+BbOnWZzEZ4+2dNfJNEA0Was+ySuJRJwyakm-GxYiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171030140351.16cb4461@bbrezillon> <CANc+2y5QWNSRf_-oOuU8TYbyVHYrbPqK8+gO=Y56-MMaJp+nZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <prasannatsmkumar@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 21:50:32 +0530
Message-ID: <CANc+2y4aLytChOjkMXBu92O+pfiZPP3AwXgu4XF1EkBsULv+2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] NAND: Optimize NAND_ECC_HW_OOB_FIRST read
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?TWFyZWsgVmHFoXV0?= <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
        cyrille.pitchen@wedev4u.fr, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Boris,

On 30 October 2017 at 19:04, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
<prasannatsmkumar@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> On 30 October 2017 at 18:33, Boris Brezillon
> <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yep, it makes sense to have that one applied too, but this is pretty
>> much the same problem: it will conflict with the ->exec_op() rework.
>
> True. I did realise that.
>
>> Can you please send it to the ML so I can track it in patchwork and
>
> Sure.

I could not get that patch compiled yet. I will revisit it next week
and send the patch.

Regards,
PrasannaKumar