Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: spi-nand: Add fixups for read retry

Miquel Raynal
2024-10-08T08:55:33Z

Hi,

linchengming884@gmail.com wrote on Tue, 8 Oct 2024 14:25:25 +0800:

> Hi Miquel,
>
> Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> 於 2024年10月7日 週一 下午4:33寫道：
> >
> > Hi Cheng Ming,
> >
> > > > > @@ -325,7 +373,8 @@ static const struct spinand_info macronix_spinand_table[] = {
> > > > > &update_cache_variants),
> > > > > SPINAND_HAS_QE_BIT,
> > > > > SPINAND_ECCINFO(&mx35lfxge4ab_ooblayout,
> > > > > - mx35lf1ge4ab_ecc_get_status)),
> > > > > + mx35lf1ge4ab_ecc_get_status),
> > > > > + SPINAND_FIXUPS(&read_retry_fixups)),
> > > > > SPINAND_INFO("MX35UF1GE4AC",
> > > > > SPINAND_ID(SPINAND_READID_METHOD_OPCODE_DUMMY, 0x92, 0x01),
> > > > > NAND_MEMORG(1, 2048, 64, 64, 1024, 20, 1, 1, 1),
> > > >
> > > > I expect a patch targeting the core first, and then the changes in the
> > > > Macronix driver.
> > >
> > > Got it, so do you prefer that we switch to using flags instead?
> >
> > Not necessarily, did I?
> >
> > ...
> >
>
> Using a flag instead of fixups allows this patch to target the core first,
> and reduces changes in the Macronix driver.

Propose what ever you think is best. You can also look at how it is
done in raw NAND. But always include the core changes first, please.
It is not related to how you implement it.

>
> > > > > const struct spinand_manufacturer *manufacturer;
> > > > > void *priv;
> > > > > + int read_retries;
> > > >
> > > > Any reason to keep this variable signed?
> > >
> > > No, we can simply change from int to u8.
> >
> > Just unsigned int is fine.
> >
>
> Sure, thanks!
>
> > Thanks,
> > Miquèl
>
> Thanks,
> Cheng Ming Lin

Thanks,
Miquèl