From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.3ffe.de (0001.3ffe.de [159.69.201.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C7D52367D3 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:23:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=159.69.201.130 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784726616; cv=none; b=GP8VA9t4JARcYoMGrysfg8nxWpqdsvqvPlNOyB7HfjfAdnixYI9jYzvZkwFLe9BgNhmIKcVEMg+2O2ktuy0oOQUFzaqzOqLb0q/oGiAgIuZGZZ3XbVIbs6acCu4bNLD70YhCZQ1gMVfap1sjXcwBg4tpfgUgvThT0TxAKPr5n6I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784726616; c=relaxed/simple; bh=48e0kQazNDIxHusLjywLitkuA88wQ3f6JHKS6Xvwc7s=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:Cc:From:To: References:In-Reply-To; b=dFF28K/FJTZxS0NB1KWDdapAjtCdo1ZPsSjUf9tRzum8HsBlm98tC+FaAjsslCEHdjIBjL4Nnm3gy7gzn8tYZK3nqFnVbAdYnwi00xOQew8oLdoK1ehao53hfKemk2ionVS/1C3dE4m4bjjk32wze5JGuu691ETSVeF1t6NlWyA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=walle.cc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=159.69.201.130 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=walle.cc Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a02:810b:4320:1000:4685:ff:fe12:5967]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.3ffe.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B9AB12F; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:23:32 +0200 (CEST) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:23:32 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/30] mtd: spi-nor: winbond: Stop filling the .name entry Cc: "Pratyush Yadav" , "Takahiro Kuwano" , "Richard Weinberger" , "Vignesh Raghavendra" , "Thomas Petazzoni" , "Steam Lin" , , From: "Michael Walle" To: "Miquel Raynal" X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260529-winbond-v7-1-spi-nor-jv-cleanup-v1-0-87e5d3122244@bootlin.com> <20260529-winbond-v7-1-spi-nor-jv-cleanup-v1-3-87e5d3122244@bootlin.com> <8733xbji7s.fsf@bootlin.com> In-Reply-To: <8733xbji7s.fsf@bootlin.com> On Wed Jul 22, 2026 at 2:56 PM CEST, Miquel Raynal wrote: > On 06/07/2026 at 15:59:53 +02, "Michael Walle" wrote: > >> On Fri May 29, 2026 at 5:22 PM CEST, Miquel Raynal wrote: >>> This is a legacy field, it is often incorrectly filled and will soon >>> become very incorrect due to IDs being reused. >> >> And I thought winbond is doing better... So if you have a contact >> there, please suggest they are putting a table with a unique >> identifier per chip there. So we can use that to do fixups. > > Yes, this is something that has been raised, I can confirm. We found a > way through the SFDP data to reliably identify which chip it is since > the SFDP version has been reliably updated over time (see the RV and PW > addition patches). This seem to be two different things here. What I meant is that Winbond will put a vendor table with a unique id per flash part in it. What you have now is some kind of way to differentiate between existing flashes, that's good, but it's not a generic solution to the problem. The end goal here should be to make all flash vendor put a vendor table into SFDP to sidestep the new notorious flash id reuse. IOW. put a new id into the SFDP and do it correctly. We should push in that direction. >>> Replace the names with a comment above the entry with the newly instate= d >>> naming scheme to indicate what chips are covered by each entry. >> >> This is exported via sysfs, so this could be a regression. >> >> Not sure.. > > Yes, but the names are totally wrong. And become even wronger with the > addition of the RV, PW, etc families. I was already asked to not put a > name on the new additions, I believe we should drop those fields, they > are very misleading. So what is your final position? Pratyush any > feedback? I can keep the old names, but, well, you know my position, > they are wrong and old. Well, but that's actually on Winbond for just reusing the IDs :) Sheldon me would also be dropping the wrong names, but yeah, it might be an ABI now. Maybe a SFDP fixup could just unset the name for newer flashes. -michael