Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 07 Oct 2021 09:08:18 +0200 | From | Michael Walle <> | Subject | Re: (EXT) Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: spi-nor: micron-st: sync flags of mt25ql02g and mt25qu02g with other mt25q |
| |
Am 2021-10-06 14:32, schrieb Matthias Schiffer: > On Tue, 2021-07-27 at 09:09 +0200, Michael Walle wrote: >> Am 2021-07-23 13:27, schrieb Matthias Schiffer: >> > All mt25q variants have the same features. >> > >> > Unlike the smaller variants, no n25q with 2G exists, so we don't need >> > to >> > match on the extended ID to distinguish n25q and mt25q series for these >> > models. >> >> But why shouldn't we? What if there will be another flash with >> the same first three id bytes? > > How do you suggest we proceed here? At the moment there are entries > matching on 0x20b[ab]22 (ignoring the extended ID) with the name > mt25q[lu]02g. > > Should I change these entries to match on on the extended ID > 0x20b[ab]22 / 0x104400 instead when I add the bits for the features > specific to the variant, removing support for other 0x20b[ab]22 > variants that may or may not actually exist? Keeping both entries (with > and without extended ID match) would preserve compatiblity with such > variants, but this approach seems problematic to me as well, as I can't > even give a name to the more generic entries (and there is no natural > extension of the n25q naming scheme to a 2G variant).
Mh, what do you think of adding three entries and make the last one, the one with the short id, as a fallback so to speak. This should retrain backwards compatibility, right? It should probably have a comment because the order will matter then.
-michael
| |