On 20/02/19 9:03 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 20:02:37 +0000 > Mark Tomlinson <Mark.Tomlinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 19/02/19 9:00 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> I'm a bit lost. Ikegami told us that checking for chip_ready() was not >>> enough and chip_good() could return true after a few tests even though >>> it initially returned false. >>> >>> I'd really like to get that fixed, but it looks like you haven't reached >>> a consensus on what the appropriate fix is :-/. >> I have done some further testing and this patch doesn't work 100%. It >> appears at least some flash chips do not start toggling immediately, and >> therefore chip_ready() can return true early. A timeout is reported, >> even though that isn't what happened. >> >> chip_good() makes an additional check over chip_ready() and is the call >> I believe we should be using. I will submit a new patch which should fix >> the infinite loop as well as not mis-reporting errors. > No, please, don't do that. We already have 3 versions of the same fix > floating around (one from Ikegami, one from Liu Jian and another one > from Przemyslaw). Can you please sync and submit a single patch that > all of you agree on? > Ikegami-san has pointed out Liu Jian's patch to me. That patch works fine for me, so I won't be creating another one afterall. Hope that reduces the number of possible patches. ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/