Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755616Ab0FUHXN (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2010 03:23:13 -0400 Received: from mail-gw0-f46.google.com ([74.125.83.46]:52341 "EHLO mail-gw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753428Ab0FUHXK (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2010 03:23:10 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=AMR/qcyarm6r1kPYefK/bqmNhOG7km+sQiML3PZe6kHo1g889VlbFM7L5ySeQNzwUY OW5wIn8zBXcxJIevE70rh2yPAmXRDOKwEsFlTQnOeovQlcGXkUHE+XQm3kXf/zppXcR/ 1fCHUNnnHfn/k03vtg/xU9TcXakK8u5rWk7k4= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <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> <20100621071551.GA16109@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> From: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:22:48 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH 1/2] mtd: m25p80: Reworkprobing/JEDEC code To: Anton Vorontsov 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by alpha.home.local id o5L7NPim025273 Content-Length: 2202 Lines: 3 On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:> 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. Mike Frysinger suggested to use non_jedec since most devices arestandard jedec devices. Only if non_jedec=1, we let the detection passif ID is 0. >>> 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>????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?