Re: [RESEND][PATCH] mtd: chips: Add support for PMC SPI Flash chips in m25p80.c

[Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:07:17AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 09:41:38AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > + Marek, since he's been reviewing (with dismay?) the increase in macro
> > > > flags in this driver. If there are any objections, I can amend/drop the
> > > > patch.
> > > 
> > > Hmmm ... this SECT_4K_PMC seems too combined to me. Why don't we use the
> > > SECT_4K flag and another flag to indicate it's a PMC part? Even better,
> > > I recall you can
> > 
> > Separating manufacturer from SECT_4K sounds good, but it really doesn't
> > buy us much. See my next comments.
> 
> I see, that's really bad news. Thanks for the explanation!
> 
> I guess there really is nothing much we can do about such parts. But then if we 
> take device tree probe into consideration, we might actually want to match the 
> part name to discern the PMS device. Or am I talking complete nonsense?

I don't think the device tree probe really gives us anything different
than the platform_device probe (a non-JEDEC device can be matched via
device-tree "compatible" property or via platform_device "name"
property, I think?). So in either case, are you suggesting a string
comparison for "pm25" on the spi_device_id.name field? Seems a bit
like nonsense :)

Additionally, this still doesn't solve the problem that the old PMC
chips need the special opcode, but the newer one doesn't.

Brian