From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from imap.sh.mvista.com (unknown [63.81.120.155]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF016DDE16 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:32:33 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <466406BB.3070607@ru.mvista.com> Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:34:03 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Create "rom" (MTD) device prpmc2800 References: <7fc919fce0761f861be3069a853d3169@bga.com> <1180769992.14025.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4662E7EA.70506@ru.mvista.com> <46630256.8050909@ru.mvista.com> <1180904670.31677.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1180904670.31677.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: , Benjamin Herrenschmidt 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 ? No. But if/when we put it, it'll only be able to influence interface probing, but not "force" the interface. > Your argument makes no sense to me. As I said, that's the way the cookie crumbles. > 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). The money was not the only factor, you know, I was under the pressure of schedules, and had a lot more things to do. > Ben. WBR, Sergei