On Friday 11 December 2015 11:53 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
Hi Jagan,
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> wrote:
On 10 December 2015 at 07:01, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
On 6 December 2015 at 11:34, Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> wrote:
Since all spi-flash core operations are moved into
sf_ops.c then it's better to renamed as spi-flash.c
Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com>
---
drivers/mtd/spi/Makefile | 2 +-
drivers/mtd/spi/{sf_ops.c => spi-flash.c} | 7 ++++---
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
rename drivers/mtd/spi/{sf_ops.c => spi-flash.c} (99%)
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
(but I suggest spi_flash.c is better as it fits with the other files)
Agreed. spi_flash.c makes more sense. So far it looks that only driver
model uclass driver is using - in the file name, others are using _.
Clear, but this file will handle common spi-flash core functionalities
it shouldn't be dm even now or later and more over underlying sf_probe
which is calling this through spi_flash_scan has a driver model on it.
Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. But my comment is to
rename sf_ops.c to sf_flash.c, not sf-flash.c.
spi-flash.c (the function spi_flash_scan from sf_probe, so this never be
a dm driver and it handles all core functionalities
======================================================================
sf_probe.c (this has dm support)
=================================
Since you're saying dm has - and ie the reason I'm saying spi-flash.c
should technically a dm supported core.
Let me know if you're not clear though.
thanks!
--
Jagan
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
