[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87jz90rgbw.fsf@bootlin.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 16:49:39 +0100
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Vignesh Raghavendra
<vigneshr@...com>, Santhosh Kumar K <s-k6@...com>, Pratyush Yadav
<pratyush@...nel.org>, Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>, Thomas
Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, Steam Lin <stlin2@...bond.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/21] mtd: spinand: Use more specific naming for the
write enable/disable op
On 07/03/2025 at 15:39:43 GMT, Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 3/7/25 3:08 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>> -#define SPINAND_WR_EN_DIS_OP(enable) \
>> +#define SPINAND_WR_EN_DIS_1S_0_0_OP(enable) \
>> SPI_MEM_OP(SPI_MEM_OP_CMD((enable) ? 0x06 : 0x04, 1), \
>> SPI_MEM_OP_NO_ADDR, \
>> SPI_MEM_OP_NO_DUMMY, \
>
> here too, I lean towards keeping the name as it was, but maybe others
> can jump in.
These are indeed the three commands with just a command cycle. But then
we have eg. page data reads which have no data: 1s-1s-0 (or 8d-8d-0)
makes sense to me because it is clear that there is no data cycle. Or
even worse, a read ID instruction can be 1s-0-1s (or, again,
8d-0-8d). Removing the 0 in the middle would definitely not make sense,
and to keep something clear I would actually prefer to keep these three
members for clarity, even though in this case they will remain 0.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists