Re: [PATCH v3 33/36] mtd: st_spi_fsm: Supply the MX25xxx chip specific configuration call-back

Brian Norris
2013-12-11T02:25:31Z

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:19:22PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.h | 4 +-
> 2 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c b/drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c
> index f1276e5..be66a49 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c
> @@ -620,6 +645,65 @@ static int stfsm_prepare_rwe_seqs_default(struct stfsm *fsm)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int stfsm_mx25_config(struct stfsm *fsm)
> +{
> + uint32_t flags = fsm->info->flags;
> + uint32_t data_pads;
> + uint8_t sta;
> + int ret;
> + bool soc_reset;
> +
> + /* Disable support for 'WRITE_1_4_4' (limited to 20MHz which is of
> + * marginal benefit on our hardware and doesn't justify implementing
> + * different READ/WRITE frequencies).
> + */
> + flags &= ~FLASH_FLAG_WRITE_1_4_4;

Huh? flags is a local variable, and you only use it for checking 32-bit
addressing mode in this function. So this flags modification is
effectively thrown away. Perhaps you meant

fsm->info->flags &= ~FLASH_FLAG_WRITE_1_4_4;

? But then you're back to modifying static data (the device table)
through a per-instance reference. That's not good behavior. Rather,
couldn't you just remove this flag from the table entry in the first
place?

Brian