From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: shijie8@gmail.com (Huang Shijie) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:44:06 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v4 0/7] mtd: spi-nor: add a new framework for SPI NOR In-Reply-To: <20980858CB6D3A4BAE95CA194937D5E73EA664C6@DBDE04.ent.ti.com> References: <1387950629-27448-1-git-send-email-b32955@freescale.com> <52D7A237.8@freescale.com> <20140117020226.GB27652@shlinux2.ap.freescale.net> <20140117065401.GA6140@shlinux2.ap.freescale.net> <20980858CB6D3A4BAE95CA194937D5E73EA664C6@DBDE04.ent.ti.com> Message-ID: <20140119024405.GA2321@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 05:40:09PM +0000, Gupta, Pekon wrote: > Hi Shijie, > > >From: Jagan Teki [mailto:jagannadh.teki at gmail.com] > [...] > > > >I feel these are good points to discuss all. > >1. With new framework seems like we need two separate controller drivers > > one for non spi-nor and one for spi-nor with single controller hw > >2. With spi-nor implementation though the hw is spi complaint but the sw is > > completely ignoring the Linux SPI core interaction. > > > >I feel above two points are technically wrong - Please correct me if am wrong > >but need all developers will join..thanks! > > > I have been following this patch-set from sometime, And I think point (2) > has been discussed back and forth in multiple times in earlier discussions. > So, Is it possible for you to summarize point (2) with all pros-n-cons ? > > - A README will helpful to clear all doubts and will ease your implementation > as well. > - It will also help in reducing turn-around time to get this framework in > acceptable state and still keep it generic enough. > > You can submit the README as Documentation/mtd/spi-nor.txt okay. thanks Huang Shijie