From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 208.177.141.226.ptr.us.xo.net ([208.177.141.226] helo=ash.lnxi.com) by canuck.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 4.33 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1BkP9Y-0004AU-Nu for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:25:09 -0400 To: David Woodhouse References: <1089699909.8822.9.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> From: ebiederman@lnxi.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 13 Jul 2004 09:25:10 -0600 In-Reply-To: <1089699909.8822.9.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [RFC] refactoring MTD cmdset ops, jedec_probe, and cfi_probe List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , David Woodhouse writes: > On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 21:13 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > I would like to have the probe functions fill in > > not the CmdSet number but a structure full of function pointers. > > And of course the upper layers need to be modified to cope. > > > I have both Intel and AMD chips to test against. CFI and non CFI > > all being used as motherboard BIOS chips. So I should be able > > to catch the vast majority of problems in testing. All but the > > delicate chip interleave case, but I should not actually be touching > > that part of the code, and at least I am aware of the issue. > > And I just rewrote that part of the code too :) > > > Does anyone have any problems with this refactoring? > > No, it seems like a good idea. It'll let us drop half of cfi_cmdset_0020 > too. Ok recording what the reason for this that I got on irc. cfi_cmdset_0020 is just a variant on cfi_cmdset_0001 that shares most of the code. A data sheet for the M58LW128A ( which erroneously reports cmdset 01 instead of 0x20) is at: http://www.st.com/stonline/books/pdf/docs/9229.pdf cmdset 020 was written for the M58LW064A and I doesn't currently have a datasheet reference for on ST site. Eric