On 23/05/17 12:58, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:43:17PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: >> The mchp23lcv1024 is software compatible with the mchp23k256, the >> only difference (from a software point of view) is the size. > > This is not really true. The size of the address is also different, > and the point of the v2 change. Agreed. How about this revised commit message --- 8< --- mtd: mchp23k256: Add support for mchp23lcv1024 The mchp23lcv1024 is similar to the mchp23k256, the differences (from a software point of view) are the capacity of the chip and the size of the addresses used. There is no way to detect the specific chip so we must be told via a Device Tree or default to mchp23k256 when device tree is not used. Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> --- >8 --- Can someone fixup the commit message or should I re-send? > >> There >> is no way to detect the size so we must be told via a Device Tree. > > or defaults to 256K when device tree is not used. > >> >> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> > > Andrew > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
