Re: [PATCH RFC 00/18] mtd: spi-nor: Proposal for 8-8-8 mode support

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 14:36:00 +0100
Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 02:59:20PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
> 
> > > The SPI framework changes definitely look OK to me, if everyone agrees
> > > that this is a good way to go from a MTD point of view I'm happy to
> > > apply them.  I have no strong opinion on the MTD bits of the series.  
> 
> > Actually, Yogesh posted similar patches before me, so maybe you can
> > look at this series [1]. The spi/spi-mem side of things is rather
> > uncontroversial. Feel free to apply them if you think they're good
> > enough to go in.  
> 
> Ugh, unfortunately he didn't send me them so I'll have to try to find
> them on the list and it looks like there's been no review from any of
> the other MTD people.  It'd be good to get some consensus, yours seems a
> bit more complete so my inclination would be to go that way.

Indeed, looks like Yogesh version is not patching spi_setup() to
support octal mode. Anyway, it seems unfair to push for my own version
while I was clearly aware of Yogesh's patchset before posting my RFC
(the only reason I did not use his patches is laziness on my side: I had
my own working version, and the RFC was not really about these
spi/spi-mem aspects, more the spi-nor side of things :-)).

So, if you don't mind, I'll ask him to send a new version addressing
this problem (which should make our patches almost identical, except for
the naming: OCTAL vs OCTO), and I'll put my R-b.