Re: [PATCH] mtd: add lock fixup for AT49BV640D and AT49BV640DT chips

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 08:44 +0100, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:05:14 +0200
> Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> <snipp Atmel AT49BV640D(T) powerup lock fixup patch>
> 
> > >  static void fixup_use_write_buffers(struct mtd_info *mtd, void *param)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct map_info *map = mtd->priv;
> > > @@ -313,6 +319,8 @@ static struct cfi_fixup fixup_table[] = {
> > >  	 * we know that is the case.
> > >  	 */
> > >  	{ CFI_MFR_ANY, CFI_ID_ANY, fixup_use_point, NULL },
> > > +	{ CFI_MFR_ATMEL, AT49BV640D, fixup_use_at49bv640dx_lock, NULL },
> > > +	{ CFI_MFR_ATMEL, AT49BV640DT, fixup_use_at49bv640dx_lock, NULL },
> > >  	{ 0, 0, NULL, NULL }
> > >  };
> > 
> > Why you add this to the fixup_table, not cfi_fixup_table?
> > 
> 
> It would probably be more appropriate to place it after the first Atmel
> fixup in the cfi_fixup_table, yes.
> 
> Really unsure why I ended up putting it in the fixup_table, because I
> used the fixup_unlock_powerup_lock as reference.
> 
> It is probably more correct that I set the FeatureSupport 0x20 (32)
> feature to indicate that the flash has "Instant block lock". I'll
> submit a v2 for the latter unless you have some other feedback?

The only other feed-back would be to CC Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
when you re-submit v2.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)