Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754770Ab0FUHQA (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2010 03:16:00 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:63408 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752337Ab0FUHP6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2010 03:15:58 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=T84vOWS84/QngUrtrNEo7+KhhTeN1ilgUAJFaq2Rz8NfsjOSSBpdhsHkLSjBkUQhyJ PDUr/HEmCnTWARWqCTDmrTDxSQKToKj8qZcw6AP/+EP9ONt3BYLKPVvc9GpRM1MaNv+K tlfbIBhlY16Jkg/I61U1t4WZCt7Kq7redQY8A= Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:15:51 +0400 From: Anton Vorontsov To: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> Cc: "Song, Barry" , David Brownell , Artem Bityutskiy , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [Uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH 1/2] mtd: m25p80: Reworkprobing/JEDEC code Message-ID: <20100621071551.GA16109@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> References: <20090818214449.GA12848@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20090818214622.GA22651@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20100618133212.GA5276@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <0F1B54C89D5F954D8535DB252AF412FA065551D8@chinexm1.ad.analog.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1614 Lines: 45 On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:27:31AM +0800, Barry Song wrote: [...] > > How about we add a non_jedec flag in platform_data, if the flag is 1, we > > let the detection pass even though the ID is 0? Otherwise, we need a > > valid ID? > Here i mean: This will break at least OF-enabled platforms (e.g. PowerPC), they assume that the driver will success for non-JEDEC flashes. OF platforms don't pass platform data, and even if they did, device tree doesn't specify if the flash is JEDEC or non-JEDEC. Which is why I think that, by default, the driver should successfully register the flash even if JEDEC probe fails. So, instead of checking for "!non_jedec", I would recommend "force_jedec" check. > Index: drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c > =================================================================== > --- drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c (revision 8927) > +++ drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c (revision 8929) > @@ -795,8 +795,13 @@ > > jid = jedec_probe(spi); > if (!jid) { > - dev_info(&spi->dev, "non-JEDEC variant of %s\n", > - id->name); > + if (!data->non_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) { -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/