From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
To: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
Michel Stempin <michel.stempin@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH] mtd: chips: Add support for PMC SPI Flash chips in m25p80.c
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:59:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130821075903.GC31788@brian-ubuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201308210941.38483.marex@denx.de>
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 09:41:38AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Brian Norris,
>
> > + Marek, since he's been reviewing (with dismay?) the increase in macro
> > flags in this driver. If there are any objections, I can amend/drop the
> > patch.
>
> Hmmm ... this SECT_4K_PMC seems too combined to me. Why don't we use the SECT_4K
> flag and another flag to indicate it's a PMC part? Even better, I recall you can
Separating manufacturer from SECT_4K sounds good, but it really doesn't
buy us much. See my next comments.
> just read the chip jedec ID and determine if it's a PMC part according to that.
> Then if it is PMC AND the SECT_4K flag is set, there is no need to add another
> flag at all, no?
IIUC, Michel's comment applies:
"They do not support JEDEC RDID (0x9f), and so they can only be
detected by matching their name string with pre-configured platform
data."
So we cannot use RDID to identify by manufacturer. In fact, this same
point screws up any attempt at manufacturer-based property detection for
non-JEDEC devices. I guess we just can't expect much from such devices.
So we would have to introduce two flags to the table: one to flag the
manufacturer and one to flag the opcode. Not necessary, IMO.
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:13:56PM +0200, Michel Stempin wrote:
[...]
> > > @@ -762,6 +764,11 @@ static const struct spi_device_id m25p_ids[] = {
> > >
> > > { "n25q128a13", INFO(0x20ba18, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, 0) },
> > > { "n25q256a", INFO(0x20ba19, 0, 64 * 1024, 512, SECT_4K) },
> > >
> > > + /* PMC */
> > > + { "pm25lv512", INFO(0, 0, 32 * 1024, 2, SECT_4K_PMC) },
> > > + { "pm25lv010", INFO(0, 0, 32 * 1024, 4, SECT_4K_PMC) },
Note that only the non-JEDEC chips needed the old commands.
> > > + { "pm25lq032", INFO(0x7f9d46, 0, 64 * 1024, 64, SECT_4K) },
> > > +
> > >
> > > /* Spansion -- single (large) sector size only, at least
> > >
> > > * for the chips listed here (without boot sectors).
> > > */
> > >
Brian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-21 7:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-15 10:13 [RESEND][PATCH] mtd: chips: Add support for PMC SPI Flash chips in m25p80.c Michel Stempin
2013-08-21 7:27 ` Brian Norris
2013-08-21 7:41 ` Marek Vasut
2013-08-21 7:59 ` Brian Norris [this message]
2013-08-21 8:07 ` Marek Vasut
2013-08-21 8:30 ` Brian Norris
2013-08-21 13:10 ` Marek Vasut
2013-08-21 19:47 ` Brian Norris
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130821075903.GC31788@brian-ubuntu \
--to=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=marex@denx.de \
--cc=michel.stempin@wanadoo.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.