[GIT PULL] mtd: spi-nor: updates for 4.10

[GIT PULL] mtd: spi-nor: updates for 4.10

[Cyrille Pitchen]

Hi Brian,

this is my very first PR so let me know whether I should change something.

Best regards,

Cyrille

The following changes since commit 1001354ca34179f3db924eb66672442a173147dc:

  Linux 4.9-rc1 (2016-10-15 12:17:50 -0700)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://github.com/spi-nor/linux.git tags/spi-nor/for-4.10

for you to fetch changes up to dfce0cd943fe0554f5f79d5b29624064dafb18cd:

  mtd: spi-nor: constify fsl_qspi_devtype_data (2016-11-26 17:45:06 +0100)

----------------------------------------------------------------
This pull request contains the following notable changes:
- add support to new memory parts.
- fix of spansion_quad_enable().
- fix of the Candence QSPI driver.
- constify some structure instances of the Freescale QSPI driver.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Ash Benz (1):
      mtd: spi-nor: add Macronix mx25u25635f to list of known devices.

Dan Carpenter (2):
      mtd: spi-nor: Off by one in cqspi_setup_flash()
      mtd: spi-nor: Fix some error codes in cqspi_setup_flash()

Heiner Kallweit (1):
      mtd: spi-nor: fix flags for s25fl128s

IWAMOTO Masahiko (1):
      mtd: spi-nor: Add support for mr25h40

Jagan Teki (1):
      mtd: spi-nor: Add at25df321 spi-nor flash support

Joël Esponde (1):
      mtd: spi-nor: fix spansion quad enable

LABBE Corentin (1):
      mtd: spi-nor: constify fsl_qspi_devtype_data

Moritz Fischer (1):
      mtd: spi-nor: Add support for N25Q016A

Sean Nyekjaer (1):
      mtd: spi-nor: add support for s25fl208k

 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/cadence-quadspi.c |  6 ++++--
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/fsl-quadspi.c     |  8 ++++----
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c         | 14 +++++++++++++-
 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

Re: [GIT PULL] mtd: spi-nor: updates for 4.10

[Brian Norris]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 02:19:43PM +0100, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> this is my very first PR so let me know whether I should change something.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Cyrille

I don't see any issues. Thanks for doing this!

BTW, does Marek have access to your repo, or are you planning on doing
all the merging?

> The following changes since commit 1001354ca34179f3db924eb66672442a173147dc:
> 
>   Linux 4.9-rc1 (2016-10-15 12:17:50 -0700)
> 
> are available in the git repository at:
> 
>   git://github.com/spi-nor/linux.git tags/spi-nor/for-4.10
> 
> for you to fetch changes up to dfce0cd943fe0554f5f79d5b29624064dafb18cd:
> 
>   mtd: spi-nor: constify fsl_qspi_devtype_data (2016-11-26 17:45:06 +0100)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This pull request contains the following notable changes:
> - add support to new memory parts.
> - fix of spansion_quad_enable().
> - fix of the Candence QSPI driver.
> - constify some structure instances of the Freescale QSPI driver.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------

Merged to l2-mtd.git.

Brian

Re: [GIT PULL] mtd: spi-nor: updates for 4.10

[Marek Vasut]

On 12/01/2016 03:22 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 02:19:43PM +0100, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> this is my very first PR so let me know whether I should change something.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Cyrille
> 
> I don't see any issues. Thanks for doing this!
> 
> BTW, does Marek have access to your repo, or are you planning on doing
> all the merging?

I'm not a big github fan, but I have access, yep.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Re: [GIT PULL] mtd: spi-nor: updates for 4.10

[Brian Norris]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:36:35PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 12/01/2016 03:22 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
> > BTW, does Marek have access to your repo, or are you planning on doing
> > all the merging?
> 
> I'm not a big github fan, but I have access, yep.

Not even as a dumb git server? I can understand not appreciating the
web interface.

Anyway, nothing (except MAINTAINERS, which can be changed) requires we
use github. We could probably set up a shared infradead.org repo or
maybe even kernel.org if you'd prefer.

Brian

Re: [GIT PULL] mtd: spi-nor: updates for 4.10

[Marek Vasut]

On 12/01/2016 06:41 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:36:35PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 12/01/2016 03:22 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
>>> BTW, does Marek have access to your repo, or are you planning on doing
>>> all the merging?
>>
>> I'm not a big github fan, but I have access, yep.
> 
> Not even as a dumb git server? I can understand not appreciating the
> web interface.

Well, it doesn't really feel right to keep kernel stuff outside of
kernel.org , or is that OK now ? And I don't really like the EULA
they have.

> Anyway, nothing (except MAINTAINERS, which can be changed) requires we
> use github. We could probably set up a shared infradead.org repo or
> maybe even kernel.org if you'd prefer.

I have a k.org account, but then, I also don't want to cause too much fuss.

> Brian
> 


-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Re: [GIT PULL] mtd: spi-nor: updates for 4.10

[Brian Norris]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:06:38PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 12/01/2016 06:41 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:36:35PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >> On 12/01/2016 03:22 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
> >>> BTW, does Marek have access to your repo, or are you planning on doing
> >>> all the merging?
> >>
> >> I'm not a big github fan, but I have access, yep.
> > 
> > Not even as a dumb git server? I can understand not appreciating the
> > web interface.
> 
> Well, it doesn't really feel right to keep kernel stuff outside of
> kernel.org , or is that OK now ? And I don't really like the EULA
> they have.

There's nothing magical about kernel.org. I see 63 github entries and 7
infradead entries in MAINTAINERS, and 12 github trees and 14 infradead
trees in linux-next.git, to name a few. There's also stuff at
freedesktop.org and probably other places. As with anything
kernel-related, it's a very distributed process, and the key is just to
have some kind of chain of trust, regardless of the storage location.

> > Anyway, nothing (except MAINTAINERS, which can be changed) requires we
> > use github. We could probably set up a shared infradead.org repo or
> > maybe even kernel.org if you'd prefer.
> 
> I have a k.org account, but then, I also don't want to cause too much fuss.

I mean, a shared one between all SPI NOR maintainers. i.e., Cyrille
would need access. I don't really know anything about kernel.org access
permissions, but if he can get on there, then by all means.

I won't bug much more about this either, but if you would rather pick
something like infradead.org, I'm sure David can help us out.

Brian

Re: [GIT PULL] mtd: spi-nor: updates for 4.10

[Cyrille Pitchen]

Hi all,

Le 01/12/2016 à 19:50, Brian Norris a écrit :
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:06:38PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 12/01/2016 06:41 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:36:35PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> On 12/01/2016 03:22 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
>>>>> BTW, does Marek have access to your repo, or are you planning on doing
>>>>> all the merging?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a big github fan, but I have access, yep.
>>>
>>> Not even as a dumb git server? I can understand not appreciating the
>>> web interface.
>>
>> Well, it doesn't really feel right to keep kernel stuff outside of
>> kernel.org , or is that OK now ? And I don't really like the EULA
>> they have.
> 
> There's nothing magical about kernel.org. I see 63 github entries and 7
> infradead entries in MAINTAINERS, and 12 github trees and 14 infradead
> trees in linux-next.git, to name a few. There's also stuff at
> freedesktop.org and probably other places. As with anything
> kernel-related, it's a very distributed process, and the key is just to
> have some kind of chain of trust, regardless of the storage location.
> 
>>> Anyway, nothing (except MAINTAINERS, which can be changed) requires we
>>> use github. We could probably set up a shared infradead.org repo or
>>> maybe even kernel.org if you'd prefer.
>>
>> I have a k.org account, but then, I also don't want to cause too much fuss.
> 
> I mean, a shared one between all SPI NOR maintainers. i.e., Cyrille
> would need access. I don't really know anything about kernel.org access
> permissions, but if he can get on there, then by all means.
> 
> I won't bug much more about this either, but if you would rather pick
> something like infradead.org, I'm sure David can help us out.
> 
> Brian
> 

I'm fine with moving to infradead.org or kernel.org if you think it's more
suited. Boris had advised me to use github just because it is what he uses
for the nand subsystem hence I've chosen github so I could be ready quickly.
No other particular reason.

I don't have a kernel.org account yet, I guess now I have some public
contributions to the Linux kernel it should be easy to create one. I've made
my GPG public key signed by few kernel.org members.
So if needed, we can move to kernel.org. I'm not familiar with it but as long
as both Marek and I can share a tree.

Otherwise we can move to infradead.org or stay with github.
About sharing a git tree, Boris'd suggested that for each release Marek and I
should decide who will be responsible for merging patches in the spi-nor tree
and for sending PR to Brian. Only one of us per release just to avoid
conflicts if instead we would both merge patches at the same time in the
spi-nor tree. However we can still choose this 2nd solution, being cautious.

Of course, whatever model we choose, both Marek and I will review spi-nor
patches for each release.


Best regards,

Cyrille

Re: [GIT PULL] mtd: spi-nor: updates for 4.10

[Marek Vasut]

On 12/02/2016 02:28 PM, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Le 01/12/2016 à 19:50, Brian Norris a écrit :
>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:06:38PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On 12/01/2016 06:41 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:36:35PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>> On 12/01/2016 03:22 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
>>>>>> BTW, does Marek have access to your repo, or are you planning on doing
>>>>>> all the merging?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not a big github fan, but I have access, yep.
>>>>
>>>> Not even as a dumb git server? I can understand not appreciating the
>>>> web interface.
>>>
>>> Well, it doesn't really feel right to keep kernel stuff outside of
>>> kernel.org , or is that OK now ? And I don't really like the EULA
>>> they have.
>>
>> There's nothing magical about kernel.org. I see 63 github entries and 7
>> infradead entries in MAINTAINERS, and 12 github trees and 14 infradead
>> trees in linux-next.git, to name a few. There's also stuff at
>> freedesktop.org and probably other places. As with anything
>> kernel-related, it's a very distributed process, and the key is just to
>> have some kind of chain of trust, regardless of the storage location.
>>
>>>> Anyway, nothing (except MAINTAINERS, which can be changed) requires we
>>>> use github. We could probably set up a shared infradead.org repo or
>>>> maybe even kernel.org if you'd prefer.
>>>
>>> I have a k.org account, but then, I also don't want to cause too much fuss.
>>
>> I mean, a shared one between all SPI NOR maintainers. i.e., Cyrille
>> would need access. I don't really know anything about kernel.org access
>> permissions, but if he can get on there, then by all means.
>>
>> I won't bug much more about this either, but if you would rather pick
>> something like infradead.org, I'm sure David can help us out.
>>
>> Brian
>>
> 
> I'm fine with moving to infradead.org or kernel.org if you think it's more
> suited. Boris had advised me to use github just because it is what he uses
> for the nand subsystem hence I've chosen github so I could be ready quickly.
> No other particular reason.
> 
> I don't have a kernel.org account yet, I guess now I have some public
> contributions to the Linux kernel it should be easy to create one. I've made
> my GPG public key signed by few kernel.org members.
> So if needed, we can move to kernel.org. I'm not familiar with it but as long
> as both Marek and I can share a tree.
> 
> Otherwise we can move to infradead.org or stay with github.

My impression is that with korg or infradead, we have infrastructure
which we can trust and which won't go away (that easily). With github,
I'm not so sure. But that's just my impression and it might be wrong.

> About sharing a git tree, Boris'd suggested that for each release Marek and I
> should decide who will be responsible for merging patches in the spi-nor tree
> and for sending PR to Brian. Only one of us per release just to avoid
> conflicts if instead we would both merge patches at the same time in the
> spi-nor tree. However we can still choose this 2nd solution, being cautious.

Do you want to alternate between releases ? I wonder if that might
confuse upstream.

> Of course, whatever model we choose, both Marek and I will review spi-nor
> patches for each release.

Yeah, I hope I'm not torturing the contributors too much by nitpicking :-)

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Re: [GIT PULL] mtd: spi-nor: updates for 4.10

[Boris Brezillon]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:58:48 +0100
Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:

> On 12/02/2016 02:28 PM, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Le 01/12/2016 à 19:50, Brian Norris a écrit :  
> >> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:06:38PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:  
> >>> On 12/01/2016 06:41 PM, Brian Norris wrote:  
> >>>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:36:35PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:  
> >>>>> On 12/01/2016 03:22 AM, Brian Norris wrote:  
> >>>>>> BTW, does Marek have access to your repo, or are you planning on doing
> >>>>>> all the merging?  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not a big github fan, but I have access, yep.  
> >>>>
> >>>> Not even as a dumb git server? I can understand not appreciating the
> >>>> web interface.  
> >>>
> >>> Well, it doesn't really feel right to keep kernel stuff outside of
> >>> kernel.org , or is that OK now ? And I don't really like the EULA
> >>> they have.  
> >>
> >> There's nothing magical about kernel.org. I see 63 github entries and 7
> >> infradead entries in MAINTAINERS, and 12 github trees and 14 infradead
> >> trees in linux-next.git, to name a few. There's also stuff at
> >> freedesktop.org and probably other places. As with anything
> >> kernel-related, it's a very distributed process, and the key is just to
> >> have some kind of chain of trust, regardless of the storage location.
> >>  
> >>>> Anyway, nothing (except MAINTAINERS, which can be changed) requires we
> >>>> use github. We could probably set up a shared infradead.org repo or
> >>>> maybe even kernel.org if you'd prefer.  
> >>>
> >>> I have a k.org account, but then, I also don't want to cause too much fuss.  
> >>
> >> I mean, a shared one between all SPI NOR maintainers. i.e., Cyrille
> >> would need access. I don't really know anything about kernel.org access
> >> permissions, but if he can get on there, then by all means.
> >>
> >> I won't bug much more about this either, but if you would rather pick
> >> something like infradead.org, I'm sure David can help us out.
> >>
> >> Brian
> >>  
> > 
> > I'm fine with moving to infradead.org or kernel.org if you think it's more
> > suited. Boris had advised me to use github just because it is what he uses
> > for the nand subsystem hence I've chosen github so I could be ready quickly.
> > No other particular reason.
> > 
> > I don't have a kernel.org account yet, I guess now I have some public
> > contributions to the Linux kernel it should be easy to create one. I've made
> > my GPG public key signed by few kernel.org members.
> > So if needed, we can move to kernel.org. I'm not familiar with it but as long
> > as both Marek and I can share a tree.
> > 
> > Otherwise we can move to infradead.org or stay with github.  
> 
> My impression is that with korg or infradead, we have infrastructure
> which we can trust and which won't go away (that easily). With github,
> I'm not so sure. But that's just my impression and it might be wrong.
> 
> > About sharing a git tree, Boris'd suggested that for each release Marek and I
> > should decide who will be responsible for merging patches in the spi-nor tree
> > and for sending PR to Brian. Only one of us per release just to avoid
> > conflicts if instead we would both merge patches at the same time in the
> > spi-nor tree. However we can still choose this 2nd solution, being cautious.  
> 
> Do you want to alternate between releases ? I wonder if that might
> confuse upstream.

Sorry, but it's still unclear to me. Marek, how would you handle the
co-maintainance with Cyrille? Would you both push to the same tree,
with only one of you (always the same guy) sending the PR to Brian
before the merge window, or do you have something else in mind?