[Rebase/PATCHv2] drivers: mtd: m25p80: Add quad read support.

[Sourav Poddar]

Hi Brian,
On Thursday 31 October 2013 09:35 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:31:23AM +0530, Sourav Poddar wrote:
>> On Thursday 31 October 2013 04:49 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 02:50:02PM +0530, Sourav Poddar wrote:
>>>> @@ -95,6 +102,7 @@ struct m25p {
>>>>   	u8			program_opcode;
>>>>   	u8			*command;
>>>>   	bool			fast_read;
>>>> +	bool                    quad_read;
>>> Did you have a response to my earlier suggestion that the fast_read and
>>> quad_read fields be combined to a single field? This could easily be an
>>> enum, and I think it could help some of the other code. It also wouldn't
>>> require us to remember that quad_read takes precedence over fast_read
>>> (which you do implicitly in this patch). And we can already foresee
>>> additional switches needed if we add the DDR command types (Huang was
>>> looking at this?), so we should just get it right now.
>>>
>>> You could, perhaps, make this two patches: one for converting the bool
>>> to an enum, and the other for supporting quad-read.
>>>
>> I read that, and I was planning to take that as a seperate
>> excercise, but yes I
>> will cook this into two independent patches.
> I think it is good to require the correct design principle (and
> appropriate cleanup) before adding new features.
>
True, as per your suggestion, I will cook this up into two seperate patches.
One for converting bools into enum.
second for adding quad support.

Few clarifications here:
1, I hope I can use l2-mtd to rebase my patch, I was seeing a mail about
reverting certain patch, which I suppose is not required now.
2. Your patches were refactoring of the current code, where you were 
defaulting the
   read opcode to fast read. If you carefully see my quad read patch, 
based on conditions,
   I am assigning read opcode to quad or fast read, and by default, I am 
keeping it at
  NORMAL READ. The reason behind this is that I think fast/dual/quad are 
special cases, which needs to
  be set explicitly based on certain dt parameters and by default, we 
should stick to NORMAL read.
I hope you are fine with this approach too?
> Brian