[PATCH 12/12] mtd: nand: provision full ID support

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 11:45 -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> >  struct nand_flash_dev {
> >         char *name;
> > -       int dev_id;
> > +       union {
> > +               struct {
> > +                       uint8_t mfr_id;
> > +                       uint8_t dev_id;
> > +               };
> > +               uint8_t id[8];
> > +       };
> 
> I'm sorry that I was unable to fully review Huang's code while it was
> being discussed earlier. But from what I read, it seemed there was
> some disagreement on some of the format of the tables (e.g., Artem
> wondered why the extra zeroes). Now, it seems like instead, we're
> including duplicate fields. The "mfr_id" and "dev_id" are always the
> first two bytes of the "id[8]" field. Does it make sense to repeat
> them? And I actually don't ever see where "mfr_id" would be used.

This is not repeating. Because of the union {}, mfr_id's memory address
is identical to id[0]'s address, and dev_id's memory address is
identical to id[1]'s address. You can consider 'mfr_id' and 'dev_id' to
be alias names for id[0] and id[1]. If one needs to have an alias name
for other ID bytes, they can be added.

My idea was that type->mfr_id and type->dev_id is more readable than
type->id[0] and type->id[1].

> There's also the (yet unanswered?) question of whether we reasonably
> would handle in this table both those chips which have their full
> information listed in conjunction with their 8-byte ID string and
> those chips with minimal information in the table, and the rest must
> be decoded from extended ID.

I was thinking that we have a single table which contains both, and we
make sure that all full ID records go first, and device ID-only records
go last. This would mean that we first match by full ID, and then by
device IDs.

> Perhaps the answer to this last question was already assumed to be
> "yes." But how would we differentiate the two types of table entries?
> Simply by seeing whether they filled out "dev_id" vs. "id[8]"? This
> patch doesn't clearly show how the new fields could be used.

I was thinking about

if (type->mfr_id == 0)
	/* this is device-only ID */
else
	/* this is full ID */

or

static inline bool is_full_nand_id(type) {
	return type->mfr_id;
}

> Hopefully my comments make some sense. If they don't, then that
> probably means we need some more discussion before including this last
> patch. If they do make sense, then that probably still means this last
> patch needs to be rewritten and/or included only along with a series
> that can reasonably make use of these fields (like Huang's series).

Sure, this is why you was in "To:" - you are the main NAND janitor
nowadays, because others mostly care about their little drivers, while
you demonstrated skills and will to make the general layer sane.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy