From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Frysinger Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:36:27 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] MTD: Add support for S25FL032P spi nor-flash In-Reply-To: <201008242036.43387.david.jander@protonic.nl> References: <201008231512.17120.david.jander@protonic.nl> <201008241206.27845.vapier@gentoo.org> <201008242036.43387.david.jander@protonic.nl> Message-ID: <201008241536.28384.vapier@gentoo.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Tuesday, August 24, 2010 14:36:43 David Jander wrote: > On Tuesday 24 August 2010 06:06:26 pm Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 24, 2010 02:39:16 David Jander wrote: > > > On Monday 23 August 2010 06:31:26 pm Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 23, 2010 09:12:16 David Jander wrote: > > > > > + { > > > > > + .idcode1 = SPSN_ID_S25FL032A, > > > > > + .idcode2 = SPSN_EXT_ID_S25FL032P, > > > > > + .idmask2 = 0xff00, > > > > > > > > what does the idcode2 look like such that you need a mask ? > > > > > > According to the datasheet the RDID command (0x9f) returns the > > > following bytes: > > > > > > byte 0: Manufacturer ID = 0x01 > > > byte 1,2: Device ID = 0x02, 0x15 (same as S25FL032A) > > > byte 3: Extended ID = 0x4d > > > byte 4,5,6: Spansion reserved (do not use). > > > > > > byte 4 is read as 0x00 on my part, but due to the above explaination, I > > > cannot say for sure it is always the same, so I had to implement a mask > > > to check for it. > > > > i'd rather we delay adding code to support something that may never > > change. so drop the whole idmask2 stuff and wait for it to become an > > actual problem > > I agree that chances this ever breaks might seem rather tiny, but if it > ever does break, waiting for it to happen could trigger a much bigger > problem than it is to add these few lines; in the worst case, in some > distant future, some boards will just not work for no apparent reason (if > spansion decided to do something with byte 4 without notifying), and > nobody will remember this discussion anymore... considering the problem is rather minute and easily detected, i dont think it'll be that big of a deal > OTOH, you decide. It's ok with me if you want to leave it out. Given the > fact that you had already accepted this patch, should I send a new version > (without the mask)? it's in a branch of mine that i can throw away, so just send a new patch based on current mainline and i'll integrate it. thanks ! -mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20100824/aeabfa49/attachment.pgp