Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/5] nvmem: eeprom: at25: add support for FRAM
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Christian Eggers <ceggers@arri.de>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
References: <20210607161201.223697-1-jiri.prchal@aksignal.cz>
 <20210607161201.223697-3-jiri.prchal@aksignal.cz>
 <YL8zZraFXTvGr3dE@kroah.com>
From:   =?UTF-8?B?SmnFmcOtIFByY2hhbA==?= <jiri.prchal@aksignal.cz>
Message-ID: <cc57eb8a-bfd6-f314-b408-0c4c8fe01a03@aksignal.cz>
Date:   Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:57:04 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YL8zZraFXTvGr3dE@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 08. 06. 21 11:07, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> +	int has_sernum;
> 
> bool?

OK.
> 
>> +	spi_message_init(&m);
>> +	memset(t, 0, sizeof(t));
> 
> Are you allowed to send spi messages off of the stack?

I don't know, but it's functional. Copied from read function.
> 
> 
>> -	dev_info(&spi->dev, "%d %s %s eeprom%s, pagesize %u\n",
>> -		(chip.byte_len < 1024) ? chip.byte_len : (chip.byte_len / 1024),
>> -		(chip.byte_len < 1024) ? "Byte" : "KByte",
>> -		at25->chip.name,
>> -		(chip.flags & EE_READONLY) ? " (readonly)" : "",
>> -		at25->chip.page_size);
>> +	dev_info(&spi->dev, "%d %s %s %s%s, pagesize %u\n",
>> +		 (chip.byte_len < 1024) ? chip.byte_len : (chip.byte_len / 1024),
>> +		 (chip.byte_len < 1024) ? "Byte" : "KByte",
>> +		 at25->chip.name, is_fram ? "fram" : "eeprom",
>> +		 (chip.flags & EE_READONLY) ? " (readonly)" : "",
>> +		 at25->chip.page_size);
> 
> When drivers work properly, they should be quiet.  This whole dev_info()
> should be removed in a later patch.

OK, didn't know, originally there is such info output. And keeping 
simplest smallest patch changes.