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 2
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 fiel
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: Bo
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: Bo
4 matches
Mail list logo