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=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 C7848C433E2 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 06:17:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8615B2065E for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 06:17:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="ftzmHZQV" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726216AbgIPGRO (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 02:17:14 -0400 Received: from lelv0143.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.248]:35254 "EHLO lelv0143.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726093AbgIPGRM (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 02:17:12 -0400 Received: from fllv0034.itg.ti.com ([10.64.40.246]) by lelv0143.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 08G6GsKm105157; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 01:16:54 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1600237014; bh=JkvZZE/7TajQ1Ag1zDg2OOuvEmolACGaWWAYZnR3LPI=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ftzmHZQVNqgihpu/IhCSlDNSEyKdG91woGLYPfZuAF8WgpVsyz4IuPxfo8eQLKqkJ U0LiBJPgRmO4/p9u10USTP7EI0HpHTB44syf74ekmaLxnyV7VdSwFTglPmGJ9kArCx xIIt7XZN3yCPv6O0GYVKAj2fr3VhFw9/MRTlBYA4= Received: from DFLE108.ent.ti.com (dfle108.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.29]) by fllv0034.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 08G6GsIG043681 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 01:16:54 -0500 Received: from DFLE113.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.34) by DFLE108.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 01:16:54 -0500 Received: from lelv0326.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.84) by DFLE113.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 01:16:54 -0500 Received: from [10.250.235.166] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0326.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 08G6Go6J088464; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 01:16:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 00/14] mtd: spi-nor: add xSPI Octal DTR support To: Pratyush Yadav CC: Tudor Ambarus , Miquel Raynal , Richard Weinberger , "open list:SPI NOR SUBSYSTEM" , open list , Sekhar Nori , Boris Brezillon References: <20200903171313.18741-1-p.yadav@ti.com> <973eac67-fa01-309f-c4d1-7983f404d507@ti.com> <20200915074727.o4drgfgdabhozjb5@ti.com> From: Vignesh Raghavendra Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 11:46:49 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200915074727.o4drgfgdabhozjb5@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 9/15/20 1:17 PM, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > On 15/09/20 12:16PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote: >> >> >> On 9/3/20 10:42 PM, Pratyush Yadav wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> This series adds support for Octal DTR flashes in the SPI NOR framework, >>> and then adds hooks for the Cypress Semper and Micron Xcella flashes to >>> allow running them in Octal DTR mode. This series assumes that the flash >>> is handed to the kernel in Legacy SPI mode. >>> >>> Tested on TI J721E EVM with 1-bit ECC on the Cypress flash. >>> >> [...] >> >> Please fix checkpatch issues on patch 1, 3, 4 and 5 > > I ran checkpatch on my patches based on top of next-20200914 just now. I > only see issues with patches 3 and 4. Patches 1 and 5 report no issues. > What problems do you see on patches 1 and 5? > Please run with --strict argument to checkpatch. You can see the issues at: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/5pPWcGNsmp/ > As for patches 3 and 4, the error I see is "ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 > error code, prefer EOPNOTSUPP". I left it in intentionally. There a > couple other functions in SPI NOR that use ENOTSUPP instead of > EOPNOTSUPP so I followed the local convention. > This is a recent addition to checkpatch: 6b9ea5ff5abd ("checkpatch: warn about uses of ENOTSUPP"). > If you insist, I can add a preparatory patch that first changes those > uses of ENOTSUPP to EOPNOTSUPP and then update patches 3 and 4 to do the > same. Let me know. > Changing existing usage of ENOTSUPP to EOPNOTSUPP is a separate exercise and patches are welcome. But any new addition of ENOTSUPP would need to be avoided. Regards Vignesh