From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E13F1606A329 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 2026 10:21:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rfc1149.net header.i=@rfc1149.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=smtp header.b=DzZrL0HW Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xSAsW-0003gZ-TW; Sat, 14 Nov 2026 05:21:00 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xSAsU-0003YB-Of; Sat, 14 Nov 2026 05:20:58 -0500 Received: from zoidberg.rfc1149.net ([195.154.227.159]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xSAsS-0000h2-US; Sat, 14 Nov 2026 05:20:58 -0500 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange secp256r1 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by zoidberg.rfc1149.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29AF680022; Sat, 14 Nov 2026 11:20:53 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=rfc1149.net; s=smtp; t=1794651653; bh=kASd6KyE8qx+PRFlSyohtAoNJbvzfBOc9ZPxOOr6SpM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=DzZrL0HWXuR4wbtaJlU9lM1mdHVwqvyv20TSPBnG8D8Z0R4tfHM0WfRL3zQIX/ljW vWovgf+mJ1w4TNmLrgpjgAwCY2oITkKm6WCbv7xgDQReHQbUHkxtX981+nJo8Di4U8 C94w3TbXIW1c8VfFJMXIbmn9BQ9z6oGBAKREDDTeLS8vEvvTW5GSopmY4C/VGJiLYy ns5Zdzb0pwEI14/ypuAbxdHXl3P7Y5HR3n/ig7PSr3T08hZH/0Om6z5ZL/7iSgz1MC t049xNjVGGQ5Fcs7GQWrZfHtTt5hDSMPkpP6UBfpwOWgBh/Dos0SKC7s4rI3gSV10y VQLmLP6op407w== From: Samuel Tardieu To: ~mohammadodeh Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexandre Iooss , Pierrick Bouvier , Peter Maydell , Paolo Bonzini , Alistair Francis , Kevin Wolf , Hanna Reitz , Fabiano Rosas , Laurent Vivier , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , Markus Armbruster , =?utf-8?Q?C=C3=A9dric?= Le Goater , Bernhard Beschow , Gaurav Sharma , Jan Kiszka , Bin Meng , Shameer Kolothum , Jamin Lin , =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu 1/3] hw/block: Add Macronix MX25R6435F flash In-Reply-To: <179449578952.8382.2790865629085512841-1@git.sr.ht> References: <179449578952.8382.2790865629085512841-1@git.sr.ht> User-Agent: mu4e 1.14.4; emacs 31.1 Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2026 11:20:52 +0100 Message-ID: <87pkw7zpbv.fsf@rfc1149.net> X-Archived-By: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=195.154.227.159; envelope-from=sam@rfc1149.net; helo=zoidberg.rfc1149.net X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on aws-us-west-2-korg-listserv-alma10-1 ~mohammadodeh writes: > { INFO("mx25l25655e", 0xc22619, 0, 64 << 10, 512, 0) }, > + { INFO("mx25r6435", 0xc22817, 0, 64 << 10, 128, ER_4K | ER_32K), > + .sfdp_read = m25p80_sfdp_mx25r6435 }, > { INFO("mx66l51235f", 0xc2201a, 0, 64 << 10, 1024, ER_4K | ER_32K) }, By looking at the surrounding lines, it looks like the part suffix ("f" here) is usually included. Shouldn't it be "mx25r6435f" instead of "mx25r6435"? > PP = 0x02, > PP4 = 0x12, > PP4_4 = 0x3e, > + QPP_1_4_4 = 0x38, > DPP = 0xa2, > QPP = 0x32, > QPP_4 = 0x34, I would have put the `QPP_1_4_4` definition after the `QPP_4` to group the `QPP` instances. > @@ -759,6 +762,7 @@ static void complete_collecting_data(Flash *s) > > switch (s->cmd_in_progress) { > case DPP: > + case QPP_1_4_4: > case QPP: > case QPP_4: > case PP: Same here. Also, you haven't added a case to the switch in `get_addr_length()`. Is that because it matches the default case, or is that an oversight? Best. Sam -- Samuel Tardieu