[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b54c6e97-079e-7ec6-7f25-a70c031fd4a6@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:28:52 +0530
From: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>
To: <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>, <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
CC: <richard@....at>, <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/20] mtd: spi-nor: Print debug message when the read
back test fails
On 06/11/19 1:09 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>
>
> On 06/11/19 12:54 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/05/2019 02:37 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>>> On 02/11/19 4:53 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com wrote:
>>>> From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>
>>>>
>>>> Demystify where the EIO error occurs.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>
>>>> ---
>>> I think this is a small enough change that can be squashed into previous
>>> patch itself
>>>
>>
>> I made separate patches because this is a separate logical change. The previous
>> patch extends the check on all bits of the Status Register, while this one
>> prints a debug message in case of EIO. Thus I tried to have a single logical
>> change contained in a single patch. I'm clearly no expert in this (Boris asked
>> me in v3 to split patches because I did too many things in one patch :) ), so I
>> would keep this as is, but if you still feel that it should be squashed, then
>> I'll do it. Please let me know.
>>
>
> I am fine either way. I don't have a strong preference...
>
If you want to keep these separate:
Reviewed-by: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>
Regards
Vignesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists