lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mtd: spinand: Add support for GigaDevice GD5F1GQ4UFxxG
Date
Hi Jeff,

On 14.05.19 17:42, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
> On 5/13/19 6:56 AM, Schrempf Frieder wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> I just noticed I hit the wrong button and my previous reply was only
>> sent to the MTD list, so I'm resending with fixed recipients...
>>
>> On 10.05.19 14:17,lede@allycomm.com wrote:
>>> From: Jeff Kletsky<git-commits@allycomm.com>
>>>
>>> The GigaDevice GD5F1GQ4UFxxG SPI NAND is in current production devices
>>> and, while it has the same logical layout as the E-series devices,
>>> it differs in the SPI interfacing in significant ways.
>>>
>>> To accommodate these changes, this patch also:
>>>
>>> * Adds support for two-byte manufacturer IDs
>>> * Adds #define-s for three-byte addressing for read ops
>>>
>>> http://www.gigadevice.com/datasheet/gd5f1gq4xfxxg/
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Kletsky<git-commits@allycomm.com>
>> Maybe it would be better to split this patch into three parts:
>> * Add support for two-byte device IDs
>> * Add #define-s for three-byte addressing for read ops
>> * Add support for GD5F1GQ4UFxxG
>>
>> Anyway the content looks good to me, so:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Frieder Schrempf<frieder.schrempf@kontron.de>
>>
>> [...]
>
> Thanks for the time in review and good words!

You're welcome!

> My apologies for an incomplete git-send-email config that left
> me nameless in the headers.

No problem, I guessed your name from the Signed-off-by tag ;)

> I wasn't sure if that was direction to submit as three patches
> at this time, but would be happy to do so if the consensus is
> that it the direction to follow.

I think it's common to separate logical different changes. This makes it
easier to read.
Also the preparation changes only touch the SPI NAND core. I guess
that's another reason why they should be separated from the
chip-specific changes.

> At least for me, I feel that the other two don't really stand
> on their own without the context for their need.

I don't think that's a problem. Just add a note to the commit message
that these core changes are needed to prepare for the GD5F1GQ4UFxxG support.

Thanks,
Frieder
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-14 18:12    [W:0.044 / U:3.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site