[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2b56d38b76660692117103c9de213cdc@walle.cc>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2022 19:22:51 +0100
From: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To: Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com
Cc: pratyush@...nel.org, miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, richard@....at,
vigneshr@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Takahiro.Kuwano@...ineon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] mtd: spi-nor: add generic flash driver
Am 2022-11-01 09:46, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com:
> On 8/11/22 01:06, Michael Walle wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>> @@ -1632,6 +1632,16 @@ static const struct spi_nor_manufacturer
>> *manufacturers[] = {
>> &spi_nor_xmc,
>> };
>>
>> +static const struct flash_info spi_nor_generic_flash = {
>> + .name = "spi-nor-generic",
>
> How about "jedec,spi-nor" instead? The series looks good, I intend to
> test it
> and apply it soon.
I had that string before actually but decided against it because it
looks like "jedec" is the vendor, which is (a) not true for any flash
and (b) if it would be a vendor, it should go into the manufacturer
property, which isn't supported at the moment.
That being said, I don't care too much. After all, it's just a name.
(and yes, I'm on vacation till next week ;)
-michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists