Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 10/20] mtd: spi-nor: Rework the SPI NOR lock/unlock logic

2019-08-27 Thread Tudor.Ambarus
On 08/27/2019 09:36 AM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote: >> +nor->flags = SNOR_F_HAS_LOCK; > This is okay for now. But Perhaps its safer to do: > > nor->flags |= SNOR_F_HAS_LOCK; > > so that we don't override flags if set earlier than > spi_nor_manufacturer_init_params(). I see that patch

Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 10/20] mtd: spi-nor: Rework the SPI NOR lock/unlock logic

2019-08-27 Thread Vignesh Raghavendra
On 26/08/19 5:38 PM, tudor.amba...@microchip.com wrote: > From: Boris Brezillon > > Add the SNOR_F_HAS_LOCK flag and set it when SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK is set > in the flash_info entry or when it's a Micron or ST flash. > > Move the locking hooks in a separate struct so that we have just > one

[RESEND PATCH v3 10/20] mtd: spi-nor: Rework the SPI NOR lock/unlock logic

2019-08-26 Thread Tudor.Ambarus
From: Boris Brezillon Add the SNOR_F_HAS_LOCK flag and set it when SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK is set in the flash_info entry or when it's a Micron or ST flash. Move the locking hooks in a separate struct so that we have just one field to update when we change the locking implementation. Signed-off-by:

[PATCH v3 10/20] mtd: spi-nor: Rework the SPI NOR lock/unlock logic

2019-08-26 Thread Tudor.Ambarus
From: Boris Brezillon Add the SNOR_F_HAS_LOCK flag and set it when SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK is set in the flash_info entry or when it's a Micron or ST flash. Move the locking hooks in a separate struct so that we have just one field to update when we change the locking implementation. Signed-off-by: