>-----Original Message----- >From: Mike Frysinger [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 9:08 AM >To: [email protected] >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-commits] [8928] trunk: [#5975] make >sure id must exist for standard JEDEC flash > >On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 06:08, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Log Message >> >> [#5975] make sure id must exist for standard JEDEC flash >> >> For non-JEDEC, we have no way to make sure whether flash >exist or not by >> detection >> >> Modified: trunk/drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c (8927 => 8928) >> >> jid = jedec_probe(spi); >> if (!jid) { >> - dev_info(&spi->dev, "non-JEDEC variant of %s\n", >> - id->name); >> + if (data->jedec) { >> + dev_err(&spi->dev, "fail to detect%s\n", >> + id->name); >> + return -ENODEV; >> + } else >> + dev_info(&spi->dev, "non-JEDEC >variant of %s\n", >> + id->name); >> } else if (jid != id) { >> >> Modified: trunk/include/linux/spi/flash.h (8927 => 8928) >> >> + /* >> + * 1: standard JEDEC, id need be matched while detecting >> + * 0: non-JEDEC, id will be 0. in this case, we can't find >> + * make sure whether the flash exists or not by detecting >> + */ >> + int jedec; >> /* we'll likely add more ... use JEDEC IDs, etc */ >> }; > >considering JEDEC compliant flashes are much more common and the >non-JEDEC ones are dying out, i think it'd make more sense to invert >this. the board resource flag should be "non_jedec" so that no >standard flash user has to update their board code with ".jedec = 1". Agree. I'd like to check whether Anton Vorontsov's patch is right....
> >also, the comment above the new jedec field has broken >grammar. probably want: > In this case, we can't be sure whether the flash exists with >runtime probing. >-mike > _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-commits mailing list [email protected] https://blackfin.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-commits
