Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: (EXT) Re: (EXT) Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: spi-nor: micron-st: sync flags of mt25ql02g and mt25qu02g with other mt25q | From | Matthias Schiffer <> | Date | Thu, 07 Oct 2021 09:18:22 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2021-10-07 at 09:08 +0200, Michael Walle wrote: > 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
Is it okay for multiple entries to use the same value for the "name" field? In the existing definitions I couldn't find any example of different ID matches mapping to the same name.
| |