[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130817201702.GD11210@norris.computersforpeace.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 13:17:02 -0700
From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mtd: m25p80: make CONFIG_M25PXX_USE_FAST_READ safe
to enable
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:22:24PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> This patch adds a flag to struct flash_info indicating that
> fast_read is not supported. This now gives the following logic
> when determing whether to enable fastread:
>
> 1) enable fast_read if device node contains m25p,fast-read
> 2) enable fast_read unconditionally if forced in Kconfig
> 3) Disable fast_read if the chip does not support it
This logic is either unclear or incorrect.
> This makes enabling CONFIG_M25PXX_USE_FAST_READ a safe option
> since we no longer enable the fast_read option unconditionally.
This statement seems to contradict 2 above, depending on the reading
(how can 2 enable "unconditionally", yet CONFIG_..._FAST_READ "no longer
enable[s] ... unconditionally"?).
The problem I have with this description is that it is assuming that
1, 2, and 3 are applied sequentially, so that later items in the
sequence have higher precedence. So it's describing code ordering, not
really logic. And statement 3 weakens the "unconditionally" of 2.
And to avoid simply complaining, I propose an alternative explanation:
If the flash chip does not support fast_read, then disable it.
Otherwise:
1) enable fast_read if device node contains m25p,fast-read
2) enable fast_read if forced in Kconfig
If we correct this description, then:
Acked-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
I can edit the patch and push the whole thing if this is acceptable.
One related question (not required for this series): do we even need
Kconfig M25PXX_USE_FAST_READ any more? Are there any SPI controllers
that can't use FAST_READ? Or perhaps if they have a slow clock, it's
preferable to use normal read?
If there are no restrictions from the controller side, I think this
NO_FR flag gives enough information to determine everything at runtime,
not compile-time.
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists