On Wed, 2026-09-16 at 07:03 +0200, Heiko Schocher wrote: > Hello Tim, > > dropped [email protected] and added > [email protected] > > Please ust the new list for further patches, thanks! > > On 14.09.26 05:32, Tim Kuo wrote: > > From: Tim Kuo <[email protected]> > > > > spi_nand_idx numbers the "spi-nandN" MTD names and was incremented > > inside > > the sprintf() before chip had been initialized and registered. > > If spinand_init() or add_mtd_device() subsequently fails, the index > > is > > consumed anyway and the numbering gets a hole: on a board where the > > first > > SPI NAND fails to probe, the second one comes up as "spi-nand1" and > > no > > "spi-nand0" exists at all. > > > > This patch will pass the current value to sprintf() and increment > > only > > after add_mtd_device() has succeeded, so spi_nand_idx counts the > > SPI > > NAND devices actually registered and the names stay contiguous > > starting > > at spi-nand0. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tim Kuo <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/mtd/nand/spi/core.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/spi/core.c > > b/drivers/mtd/nand/spi/core.c > > index 14af4264612..1fa669f3def 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/spi/core.c > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/spi/core.c > > @@ -1691,7 +1691,7 @@ static int spinand_probe(struct udevice *dev) > > mtd->name = malloc(20); > > if (!mtd->name) > > return -ENOMEM; > > - sprintf(mtd->name, "spi-nand%d", spi_nand_idx++); > > + sprintf(mtd->name, "spi-nand%d", spi_nand_idx); > > spinand->slave = slave; > > spinand_set_ofnode(spinand, dev_ofnode(dev)); > > #endif > > @@ -1709,6 +1709,7 @@ static int spinand_probe(struct udevice *dev) > > goto err_spinand_cleanup; > > > > plat->mtd = mtd; > > + spi_nand_idx++; > > > > return 0; > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Heiko Schocher <[email protected]> > > bye, > Heiko
Hi all, This is just a gentle ping. Any further comments/reviews are appreciated. Is this patch able to be merged? BRs, Tim Kuo
