From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ZghcY-0005Jh-3Q for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 23:14:10 +0000 Received: by padhy16 with SMTP id hy16so186609962pad.1 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:13:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:13:46 -0700 From: Brian Norris To: Jagan Teki Cc: Marek Vasut , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] mtd: spi-nor: add SPI NOR manufacturer IDs Message-ID: <20150928231346.GN31505@google.com> References: <1441137435-52862-1-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com> <1441137435-52862-4-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com> <20150928004644.GD34421@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 02:42:24PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > On 28 September 2015 at 06:16, Brian Norris wrote: > > The whole point of this patch is that some mfrs use different IDs for > > different classes of flash, so we shouldn't force our programming > > patterns into looking like CFI (i.e., parallel NOR [1]) when we're > > talking about serial NOR. > > > > If you'd rather, I can just copy the values into this header (e.g., > > 0x01, 0x89, etc.) and completely remove all references to CFI. > > Understand your intention, Do you? It really doesn't seem like it. > but if what are the mfrs id's same then > it's better to use already defined CFI notation because we may get > into impression that the mfrs uses same id for CFI and SPINOR CFI is really unrelated, for the most part. Parallel and serial NOR evolved quite differently. Why would we want that impression, again? Really, is it that hard to understand why we'd want two separate MFR ID lists -- one for CFI and one for SPI NOR -- when it's quite clear that those lists are NOT the same? Why should you needlessly ask programmers to jump between using CFI_MFR_* and SNOR_MFR_* in the same framework? What if someone starts trying to use CFI_MFR_WINBOND (which is NOT correct for SPI NOR)? I'm trying *clarify* the ID namespace here, not convolute it... > (as cfi > and spinor are NOR complaint flash memories) - IMHO. That doesn't make any sense. "NOR" is not anything to be "compliant" to; it's a type of flash technology (i.e., electrical design). Brian