[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c6955eed3a445f4b87920fe0d47e7230@walle.cc>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 11:30:12 +0200
From: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To: Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de>
Cc: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@...com>, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: spi-nor: When a flash memory is missing do not
report an error
Am 2022-07-16 10:20, schrieb Michal Suchánek:
>> So if DT says there isn't a flash on a specific CS when there is, then
>> DT should be fixed to describe the flash, and then we can probe it.
>> You
>> both seem to be saying the same thing here, and I agree.
>
> The disagreement is about the situation when there is sometimes a flash
> chip.
No. The disagreement is what should happen if the DT says there is
a device but there isn't. Which right now is an error and it should
stay that way. Your hardware description says there is a flash
but it cannot be probed, so it is an error. What about a board
which has an actual error and the flash isn't responding? You
trade one use case for another.
Also I've looked at the PHY subsystem and there, if a PHY is described
in the DT but isn't there, the following error will be printed:
dev_err(&mdio->dev, "MDIO device at address %d is missing.\n", addr);
And that is for a bus which can even be automatically be
probed/detected.
-michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists