From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1153FDDE20 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 07:05:47 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Create "rom" (MTD) device prpmc2800 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Sergei Shtylyov In-Reply-To: <46630256.8050909@ru.mvista.com> References: <7fc919fce0761f861be3069a853d3169@bga.com> <1180769992.14025.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4662E7EA.70506@ru.mvista.com> <46630256.8050909@ru.mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 07:04:30 +1000 Message-Id: <1180904670.31677.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: ppcdev , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Milton Miller List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 22:03 +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > >> the CFI/JEDEC interface then can be deduced by probing > > > Most of the time, sure. Not always. > > That's the way the cookie crumbles in Linux MTD for now. It's > *always* > detecting this by probing -- you only can say what [not] to probe. So you are saying that because the current linux MTD stuff can only probe (which doesn't always work), we should not put the proper chip interface type in the device-tree ? Your argument makes no sense to me. Put the proper interface informations in the device-tree, maybe some OS smarter than linux will make good use on it and maybe linux will be fixed at one point too (not by you, of course, you gave us that line often enough about not being paid to do the right thing). Ben.