[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201409290043.43750.marex@denx.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 00:43:43 +0200
From: Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
To: bpqw <bpqw@...ron.com>
Cc: "dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
"shijie8@...il.com" <shijie8@...il.com>,
"geert+renesas@...der.be" <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
"grmoore@...era.com" <grmoore@...era.com>,
"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1 v2] driver:mtd:spi-nor: Add Micron quad I/O support
On Sunday, September 28, 2014 at 03:59:42 AM, bpqw wrote:
> For Micron spi norflash,you can enable
> Quad spi transfer by clear EVCR(Enhanced
> Volatile Configuration Register) Quad I/O
> protocol bit.
OK, this information is nice and all, but what does this patch do? I can't learn
this information from the commit message as it is, can I ? And , the purpose of
the commit message is exactly to summarize the change the patch implements.
> Signed-off-by: bean huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>
> ---
> v1-v2:modified to that capture wait_till_ready()
> return value,if error,directly return its
> the value.
>
> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c | 46
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h |
> 6 ++++++
> 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> index b5ad6be..0c3b4fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> @@ -878,6 +878,45 @@ static int spansion_quad_enable(struct spi_nor *nor)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int micron_quad_enable(struct spi_nor *nor)
> +{
> + int ret, val;
> +
> + ret = nor->read_reg(nor, SPINOR_OP_RD_EVCR, &val, 1);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(nor->dev, "error %d reading EVCR\n", ret);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + write_enable(nor);
> +
> + /* set EVCR ,enable quad I/O */
> + nor->cmd_buf[0] = val & ~EVCR_QUAD_EN_MICRON;
> + ret = nor->write_reg(nor, SPINOR_OP_WD_EVCR, nor->cmd_buf, 1, 0);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(nor->dev,
> + "error while writing EVCR register\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
Why not just "return ret;" ?
[...]
--
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