Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mtd: mchp23k256: Add support for mchp23lcv1024

2017-05-23 Thread Chris Packham
On 23/05/17 19:19, Boris Brezillon wrote: > BTW, it's really weird to have the _flash extension in the struct name, > while we're actually dealing with SRAMs. Agreed. After the dust settles on this series I'll send a trivial patch to change "flash" to something sensible like "sram" or "chip".

Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mtd: mchp23k256: Add support for mchp23lcv1024

2017-05-23 Thread Chris Packham
On 23/05/17 19:19, Boris Brezillon wrote: > BTW, it's really weird to have the _flash extension in the struct name, > while we're actually dealing with SRAMs. Agreed. After the dust settles on this series I'll send a trivial patch to change "flash" to something sensible like "sram" or "chip".

Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mtd: mchp23k256: Add support for mchp23lcv1024

2017-05-23 Thread Boris Brezillon
Le Tue, 23 May 2017 12:43:17 +1200, Chris Packham a écrit : > The mchp23lcv1024 is software compatible with the mchp23k256, the > only difference (from a software point of view) is the size. There > is no way to detect the size so we must be told via a Device

Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mtd: mchp23k256: Add support for mchp23lcv1024

2017-05-23 Thread Boris Brezillon
Le Tue, 23 May 2017 12:43:17 +1200, Chris Packham a écrit : > The mchp23lcv1024 is software compatible with the mchp23k256, the > only difference (from a software point of view) is the size. There > is no way to detect the size so we must be told via a Device Tree. > > Signed-off-by: Chris

Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mtd: mchp23k256: Add support for mchp23lcv1024

2017-05-22 Thread Andrew Lunn
> Agreed. How about this revised commit message > > --- 8< --- > mtd: mchp23k256: Add support for mchp23lcv1024 > > The mchp23lcv1024 is similar to the mchp23k256, the differences (from a > software point of view) are the capacity of the chip and the size of the > addresses used. > > There is

Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mtd: mchp23k256: Add support for mchp23lcv1024

2017-05-22 Thread Andrew Lunn
> Agreed. How about this revised commit message > > --- 8< --- > mtd: mchp23k256: Add support for mchp23lcv1024 > > The mchp23lcv1024 is similar to the mchp23k256, the differences (from a > software point of view) are the capacity of the chip and the size of the > addresses used. > > There is

Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mtd: mchp23k256: Add support for mchp23lcv1024

2017-05-22 Thread Chris Packham
On 23/05/17 12:58, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:43:17PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: >> The mchp23lcv1024 is software compatible with the mchp23k256, the >> only difference (from a software point of view) is the size. > > This is not really true. The size of the address is also

Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mtd: mchp23k256: Add support for mchp23lcv1024

2017-05-22 Thread Chris Packham
On 23/05/17 12:58, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:43:17PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: >> The mchp23lcv1024 is software compatible with the mchp23k256, the >> only difference (from a software point of view) is the size. > > This is not really true. The size of the address is also

Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mtd: mchp23k256: Add support for mchp23lcv1024

2017-05-22 Thread Andrew Lunn
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:43:17PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: > The mchp23lcv1024 is software compatible with the mchp23k256, the > only difference (from a software point of view) is the size. This is not really true. The size of the address is also different, and the point of the v2 change. >

Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mtd: mchp23k256: Add support for mchp23lcv1024

2017-05-22 Thread Andrew Lunn
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:43:17PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: > The mchp23lcv1024 is software compatible with the mchp23k256, the > only difference (from a software point of view) is the size. This is not really true. The size of the address is also different, and the point of the v2 change. >

[PATCH v3 5/5] mtd: mchp23k256: Add support for mchp23lcv1024

2017-05-22 Thread Chris Packham
The mchp23lcv1024 is software compatible with the mchp23k256, the only difference (from a software point of view) is the size. There is no way to detect the size so we must be told via a Device Tree. Signed-off-by: Chris Packham --- Changes in v2: - fix

[PATCH v3 5/5] mtd: mchp23k256: Add support for mchp23lcv1024

2017-05-22 Thread Chris Packham
The mchp23lcv1024 is software compatible with the mchp23k256, the only difference (from a software point of view) is the size. There is no way to detect the size so we must be told via a Device Tree. Signed-off-by: Chris Packham --- Changes in v2: - fix formatting in switch statement - add