[PATCH v3 14/25] mtd: spi-nor: Introduce flash_info flags masks

[Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com]

On 11/12/21 11:50 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> Am 2021-10-29 19:26, schrieb Tudor Ambarus:
>> Clarify for what the flash_info flags are used for. Split them in
>> three categories:
>> 1/ NON_SFDP_FLAGS: flags that indicate support that is not defined
>>    by the JESD216 standard in its SFDP tables.
>> 2/ SFDP_FLAGS: flags that indicate support that can be discovered
>>    via SFDP. These flags are used when the flash does not define the
>>    SFDP tables. Used together with SPI_NOR_SKIP_SFDP flag.
>> 3/ FIXUP_FLAGS: flags that indicate support that can be discovered
>>    via SFDP ideally, but can not be discovered for this particular
>> flash
>>    because the SFDP table that indicates this support is not defined by
>>    the flash. In case the table for this support is defined but has
>> wrong
>>    values, one should instead use a post_sfdp() hook to set the SNOR_F
>>    equivalent flag.
>>
>> Manufacturer specific flags like USE_CLSR, USE_FSR, SPI_NOR_XSR_RDY,
>> will be removed in a future series.
> 
> While i like the partitioning of the flags, I don't really like
> that masks etc. Why don't you just use different members, like
> non_sfdp_flags sfdp_flags and fixup_flags?

because of memory concerns. But I think I can substitute the u32 flags
with u16 and u8 equivalents, so will end with the same memory footprint.
Will implement this, thanks.

ta