Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:15:15 +0100 | From | Michael Walle <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: Add support for w25qNNjwim |
| |
Hi Tudor,
Am 2020-01-13 11:07, schrieb Michael Walle: >>> >>> Btw. is renaming the flashes also considered a backwards incomaptible >>> change? >> >> No, we can fix the names. >> >>> And can there be two flashes with the same name? Because IMHO it >>> would >>> be >> >> I would prefer that we don't. Why would you have two different >> jedec-ids with >> the same name? > > Because as pointed out in the Winbond example you cannot distiguish > between > W25Q32DW and W25Q32JWIQ; and in the Macronix example between MX25L8005 > and > MX25L8006E. Thus my reasoning was to show only the common part, ie > W25Q32 > or MX25L80 which should be the same for this particular ID. Like I > said, I'd > prefer showing an ambiguous name instead of a wrong one. But then you > may > have different IDs with the same ambiguous name.
Another solution would be to have the device tree provide a hint for the actual flash chip. There would be multiple entries in the spi_nor_ids with the same flash id. By default the first one is used (keeping the current behaviour). If there is for example
compatible = "jedec,spi-nor", "w25q32jwq";
the flash_info for the w25q32jwq will be chosen.
I know this will conflict with the new rule that there should only be
compatible = "jedec,spi-nor";
without the actual flash chip. But it seems that it is not always possible to just use the jedec id to match the correct chip.
Also see for example mx25l25635_post_bfpt_fixups() which tries to figure out different behaviour by looking at "some" SFDP data. In this case we might have been lucky, but I fear that this won't work in all cases and for older flashes it won't work at all.
BTW I do not suggest to add the strings to the the spi_nor_dev_ids[].
I guess that would be a less invasive way to fix different flashes with same jedec ids.
-michael
| |