Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: remove unused NO_OP_CHIP_ERASE flag

From: "Michael Walle" <mwalle@kernel.org>
To: <Takahiro.Kuwano@infineon.com>, <tkuw584924@gmail.com>,
	<linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>, <pratyush@kernel.org>,
	<miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>, <richard@nod.at>, <vigneshr@ti.com>,
	<Bacem.Daassi@infineon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: remove unused NO_OP_CHIP_ERASE flag
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2026 08:30:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <DHV7VGCNH2XQ.BL6IUSRH2GD6@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <97a94aa30860409fabe0ce97dbc92cd8@infineon.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 898 bytes --]

On Fri Apr 17, 2026 at 2:27 AM CEST, Takahiro.Kuwano wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Thu Apr 16, 2026 at 11:03 AM CEST, tkuw584924 wrote:
>> > --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h
>> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h
>> > @@ -124,23 +124,22 @@
>> >  /* Keep these in sync with the list in debugfs.c */
>> >  enum spi_nor_option_flags {
>> >  	SNOR_F_HAS_SR_TB	= BIT(0),
>> > -	SNOR_F_NO_OP_CHIP_ERASE	= BIT(1),
>> 
>> Can we just drop this line and leave the rest as is? It's already
>> hard to follow any development in spi-nor due to code churn. I don't
>> think one hole in the flags hurts. The next new flag can then just
>> reuse it.
>> 
>> -michael
>> 
> Sounds fine to me. With a placeholder like this?
> /* NEW FLAG HERE : BIT(1) */

You could add a comment above the enum. Something like. "This could
contain holes, if adding a new flag use the first free spot." 

-michael

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 297 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 144 bytes --]

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