From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86A2C3A59E for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:39:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8BFC2339F for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:39:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729015AbfHUNjY (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Aug 2019 09:39:24 -0400 Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.191]:4749 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728567AbfHUNjW (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Aug 2019 09:39:22 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS411-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 654F640D1167F25D5595; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 21:39:19 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.202.227.238) by DGGEMS411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.211) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 21:39:09 +0800 From: John Garry Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: mtd: Update spi nor reference driver To: Mark Brown References: <1565107583-68506-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> <6c4bb892-6cf5-af46-3ace-b333fd47ef14@huawei.com> <9b074db7-b95d-a081-2fba-7b2b82997332@kontron.de> <20190820165826.GF4738@sirena.co.uk> CC: Vignesh Raghavendra , Schrempf Frieder , "corbet@lwn.net" , "mchehab+samsung@kernel.org" , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "marek.vasut@gmail.com" , "tudor.ambarus@microchip.com" , "miquel.raynal@bootlin.com" , "richard@nod.at" , wanghuiqiang Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:39:02 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190820165826.GF4738@sirena.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.202.227.238] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 20/08/2019 17:58, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 03:09:15PM +0100, John Garry wrote: >> On 19/08/2019 05:39, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote: >>> On 16/08/19 3:50 PM, John Garry wrote: > >>>> About the child spi flash devices, is the recommendation to just use >>>> PRP0001 HID and "jedec,spi-nor" compatible? > >>> I am not quite familiar with ACPI systems, but child flash device should >>> use "jedec,spi-nor" as compatible. > >> Right, so to use SPI MEM framework, it looks like I will have to use PRP0001 >> and "jedec,spi-nor" as compatible. > >> My reluctance in using PRP0001 and compatible "jedec,spi-nor" is how other >> OS can understand this. > Hi Mark, > Last I heard Windows wasn't doing anything with PRP0001 but on the other > hand the idiomatic way to handle this for ACPI is as far as I can tell > to have what is essentially a board file loaded based on DMI information > without any real enumerability so there's no real conflict between the > two methods. Fine, I'll consider this alt method further. Thanks, John >