From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
To: "Bean Huo 霍斌斌 (beanhuo)" <beanhuo@micron.com>
Cc: Adam Somerville <adamsomerville@gmail.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
"linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
"zajec5@gmail.com" <zajec5@gmail.com>,
"jteki@openedev.com" <jteki@openedev.com>,
"mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com"
<mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
"furquan@google.com" <furquan@google.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] spi-nor: fix cross die reads on Micron multi-die devices
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:56:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160121095630.4df558b3@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A765B125120D1346A63912DDE6D8B6310BF57B7B@NTXXIAMBX02.xacn.micron.com>
Hi Bean,
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 01:06:48 +0000
Bean Huo 霍斌斌 (beanhuo) <beanhuo@micron.com> wrote:
> Hi, Adam and Boris
>
> For Micron MT25Q ,MT25T and MT35Q, they does not exist this action even they are
> Multi-die devices. So when the last byte of the die selected is read, the next byte output
> is the first byte of next die(not the same die).
> You can check this by extended address register chapter in our datasheet, there are detail
> Information.
I never said you were wrong ;), I just asked if it was relevant to
differentiate the two cases. IOW, would the implementation proposed by
Adam work correctly on all chips? And what is the real performance
penalty for MT25Q ,MT25T and MT35Q if we decide to split the read
command in several reads to handle this cross die case?
Best Regards,
Boris
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-21 8:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-20 2:45 [RFC] spi-nor: fix cross die reads on Micron multi-die devices Bean Huo 霍斌斌 (beanhuo)
2016-01-20 12:01 ` Adam Somerville
2016-01-20 12:24 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-01-21 1:06 ` Bean Huo 霍斌斌 (beanhuo)
2016-01-21 8:56 ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2016-01-22 7:00 ` Bean Huo 霍斌斌 (beanhuo)
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-01-19 15:01 adamsomerville
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160121095630.4df558b3@bbrezillon \
--to=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=adamsomerville@gmail.com \
--cc=beanhuo@micron.com \
--cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=furquan@google.com \
--cc=jteki@openedev.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=zajec5@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox