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".
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".
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
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
> 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
> 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
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
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
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.
>
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.
>
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo