From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.10]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1VC8Ba-00020u-BJ for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:11:01 +0000 From: Marek Vasut To: Brian Norris Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH] mtd: chips: Add support for PMC SPI Flash chips in m25p80.c Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:10:08 +0200 References: <51E3CB64.4080107@wanadoo.fr> <201308211007.18051.marex@denx.de> <20130821083000.GD31788@brian-ubuntu> In-Reply-To: <20130821083000.GD31788@brian-ubuntu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201308211510.08341.marex@denx.de> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Michel Stempin List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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