[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6351c1d6-c284-6bca-3914-3895d847c9c3@kontron.de>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 06:56:10 +0000
From: Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
To: Jeff Kletsky <lede@...ycomm.com>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
CC: Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kbuild-all@...org" <kbuild-all@...org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] mtd: spinand: Add support for GigaDevice
GD5F1GQ4UFxxG
Hi Jeff,
On 23.05.19 00:05, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
> Addresses changes in macros and related data structures introduced by
> commit 377e517b5fa5
> mtd: nand: Add max_bad_eraseblocks_per_lun info to memorg
>
> Resolves issue detected by kbuild test robot
> Tue, 21 May 2019 17:28:09 +0800
> Tue, 21 May 2019 18:17:28 +0800
>
> GD5F1GQ4UFxxG data sheet on page 34 of gd5f1gq4xfxxg_v2.4_20190322.pdf
> indicates "Minumum number of valid blocks (Nvb)" 1004 out of 1024 total.
>
> Newly introduced "max bad blocks" parameter set to 20 (1024-1020).
>
> Rebased on v5.2-rc1 and confirmed patch applies on master.
>
>
> Patches 1/3 and 2/3 are the same as in the previous series.
>
> Patch 3/3, mtd: spinand: Add support for GigaDevice GD5F1GQ4UFxxG,
> includes the additional parameter (compared here to v3 of the series):
>
> SPINAND_INFO("GD5F1GQ4UFxxG", 0xb148,
> - NAND_MEMORG(1, 2048, 128, 64, 1024, 1, 1, 1),
> + NAND_MEMORG(1, 2048, 128, 64, 1024, 20, 1, 1, 1),
> NAND_ECCREQ(8, 512),
> SPINAND_INFO_OP_VARIANTS(&read_cache_variants_f,
> &write_cache_variants,
>
> R-b of Frieder Schrempf removed from [3/3] as a result this change.
As to what I know, this would not have been necessary in this case. I
missed the missing parameter while reviewing and you fixed it with this
new version, so you obviously improved the patch with a minor change and
it wouldn't be working without this anyway. So I think in such cases you
would typically keep the R-b tags.
Also if you drop the R-b tag from one of the patches in your set, you
should instead CC the reviewer for the whole set. Otherwise
get_maintainer will only CC the reviewer for those patches that contain
his tag. In this case I wasn't CCed for patch 3/3.
Thanks,
Frieder
>
> Supersedes series:
>
> mtd: spinand: Add support for GigaDevice GD5F1GQ4UFxxG
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-mtd/list/?series=108868
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
> Cc: Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
> Cc: Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>
> Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
> Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
> Cc: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
> Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>
> Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: kbuild-all@...org
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists