Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: spi-nor: add debugfs nodes for querying the flash name and id

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>]

On Tue, 7 May 2019 23:06:32 +0800
Zhuohao Lee <zhuohao@chromium.org> wrote:


> > > > > @@ -231,8 +231,11 @@ static int m25p_probe(struct spi_mem *spimem)  
> > > >
> > > > Can we add this to function that is generic to all spi-nor devices,
> > > > instead of making this specific to m25p?  
> > > I can't find a better way to insert the spi_nor_debugfs_create()
> > > inside spi_nor.c.
> > > Another way is adding spi_nor_debugfs_create() to all of the caller.
> > > What do you think? Any other suggestion?  
> >
> > That, or maybe create a new spi_nor_device_register that does both
> > mtd_device_register and that spi_nor_debugfs_create call?  
> Thanks for suggestion. I feel that putting the mtd_device_register
> (high level api) inside the spi-nor (low level api)
> isn't perfect. This also will limit the caller to call this api to
> register mtd device with debugfs and lost the flexibility.
> I'll keep the original idea that adding spi_nor_debugfs_create() to
> all of the caller.

Why don't you move that to the MTD layer? If you add partname/partid
fields to mtd_info you'll have everything you need to make that generic.
It's then up to the upper layer to fill those fields before calling
mtd_device_register().


> > > >  
> > > > > +               return;
> > > > > +       }
> > > > > +       debugfs_create_file("flashid", S_IRUSR, root, nor,
> > > > > +                       &flashid_dbg_fops);
> > > > > +       debugfs_create_file("flashname", S_IRUSR, root, nor,
> > > > > +                       &flashname_dbg_fops);  

I thought we agreed on partname/partid. Any reason for switching back
to flashname/flashid?

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/