Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:25:26 -0800 | From | Brian Norris <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 33/36] mtd: st_spi_fsm: Supply the MX25xxx chip specific configuration call-back |
| |
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:19:22PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.h | 4 +- > 2 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c b/drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c > index f1276e5..be66a49 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c > @@ -620,6 +645,65 @@ static int stfsm_prepare_rwe_seqs_default(struct stfsm *fsm) > return 0; > } > > +static int stfsm_mx25_config(struct stfsm *fsm) > +{ > + uint32_t flags = fsm->info->flags; > + uint32_t data_pads; > + uint8_t sta; > + int ret; > + bool soc_reset; > + > + /* Disable support for 'WRITE_1_4_4' (limited to 20MHz which is of > + * marginal benefit on our hardware and doesn't justify implementing > + * different READ/WRITE frequencies). > + */ > + flags &= ~FLASH_FLAG_WRITE_1_4_4;
Huh? flags is a local variable, and you only use it for checking 32-bit addressing mode in this function. So this flags modification is effectively thrown away. Perhaps you meant
fsm->info->flags &= ~FLASH_FLAG_WRITE_1_4_4;
? But then you're back to modifying static data (the device table) through a per-instance reference. That's not good behavior. Rather, couldn't you just remove this flag from the table entry in the first place?
Brian
| |