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

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

Hi Brian,

> 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 :)

Yeah, you're right.

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

One would have to match the full part name, but that's already happening. Please 
ignore me, I had my coffee only now.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut