[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a3a41a83-0726-0aea-bb92-db6ef1a465b2@microchip.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 06:37:42 +0000
From: <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
To: <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
CC: <marek.vasut@...il.com>, <vigneshr@...com>, <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
<computersforpeace@...il.com>, <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
<richard@....at>, <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] mtd: spi_nor: Add nor->setup() method
On 08/01/2019 09:36 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:12:14 +0000
> <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com> wrote:
>
>
>> static inline bool spi_nor_protocol_is_dtr(enum spi_nor_protocol proto)
>> {
>> return !!(proto & SNOR_PROTO_IS_DTR);
>> @@ -384,6 +522,7 @@ struct flash_info;
>> * useful when pagesize is not a power-of-2
>> * @disable_write_protection: [FLASH-SPECIFIC] disable write protection during
>> * power-up
>> + * @setup: [FLASH-SPECIFIC] configure the spi-nor memory
>
> Might be worth giving a example of the type of configuration that can
> be done here.
will do
>
> The patch looks good otherwise.
>
> Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
>
>> * completely locked
>
> Looks like this 'completely locked' is a leftover from a previous move
> (lock functions were move to a separate _ops struct IIRC). Can you fix
> that?
there's already a patch on ML for this, I'll apply it.
Thanks,
ta
Powered by blists - more mailing lists