[PATCH v4 2/3] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Use chip_ready() for write on S29GL064N

[Tokunori Ikegami]

Hi,

On 2022/03/22 0:16, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 21.03.22 15:56, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>> regressions at leemhuis.info wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:17:50 +0100:
>>> On 21.03.22 14:41, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>>>> regressions at leemhuis.info wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 13:51:10 +0100:
>>>>> On 21.03.22 13:35, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>>>>>> regressions at leemhuis.info wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 12:48:11 +0100:
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>> On 16.03.22 16:54, Tokunori Ikegami wrote:
>>>>>>>> As pointed out by this bug report [1], buffered writes are now broken on
>>>>>>>> S29GL064N. This issue comes from a rework which switched from using chip_good()
>>>>>>>> to chip_ready(), because DQ true data 0xFF is read on S29GL064N and an error
>>>>>>>> returned by chip_good(). One way to solve the issue is to revert the change
>>>>>>>> partially to use chip_ready for S29GL064N.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengutronix.de/
>>>>>>> Why did you switch from the documented format for links you added on my
>>>>>>> request (see
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/f1b44e87-e457-7783-d46e-0d577cea3b72@leemhuis.info/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ) to v2 to something else that is not recognized by tools and scripts
>>>>>>> that rely on proper link tags? You are making my and maybe other peoples
>>>>>>> life unnecessary hard. :-((
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FWIW, the proper style should support footnote style like this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Link:
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengutronix.de/
>>>>>>>   [1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ciao, Thorsten
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #regzbot ^backmonitor:
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengutronix.de/
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>> Because today's requirement from maintainers is to provide a Link
>>>>>> tag that points to the mail discussion of the patch being applied.
>>>>> That can be an additional Link tag, that is done all the time.
>>>>>   
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> then asked to use the above form instead to point to the bug report
>>>>>> because I don't see the point of having a "Link" tag for it?
>>>> Perhaps I should emphasize that I don't remember your initial request
>>>> regarding the use of a Link tag
>>> Happen, no worries.
>>>
>>>> and my original idea was to help this
>>>> contributor, not kill your tools which I actually know very little
>>>> about.
>>>>>> But it's not your own project, we are all working with thousands of
>>>>> people together on this project on various different fronts. That needs
>>>>> coordination, as some things otherwise become hard or impossible. That's
>>>>> why we have documentation that explains how to do some things. Not
>>>>> following it just because you don't like it is not helpful and in this
>>>>> case makes my life as a volunteer a lot harder.
>>>> Let's be honest, you are referring to a Documentation patch that *you*
>>>> wrote
>>> Correct, but in case of submitting-patches it was just a clarification
>>> how to place links; why the whole aspect was missing in the other is
>>> kinda odd and likely lost in history...
>>>
>>>> and was merged into Linus' tree mid January. How often do you
>>>> think people used to the contribution workflow monitor these files?
>>> Not often, that's why I have no problem pointing it out, even if that's
>>> slightly annoying. But you can imagine that it felt kinda odd on my side
>>> when asking someone to set the links (with references to the docs
>>> explaining how to set them) and seeing them added then in v2, just so
>>> see they vanished again in v3 of the same patch. :-/
>> I fully understand. I actually learned that these tags had to be used
>> for this purpose, so I will actually enforce their use in my next
>> reviews.
>>
>> Just a side question, should the Documentation also mention how
>> to refer to links for people not used to it? Something like
>> [5.Posting.rst]:
>>
>> 	"Link: <link> [1]
>> 	 Link: <link> [2]"
> Maybe. But I think the better approach would be: introduce more specify
> tags like "Reported:" (and maybe drop "Reported-by" at the same time?)
> or "BugLink" (some people use that already!) would be better -- and then
> maybe "Posted:", "Reviewposting", or something like that for the link to
> the patch that is being applied; and leave "Link" for the rest. I
> proposed that a while ago, but that didn't get any traction.

Fixed to use Link tag as before by the version 5 patches instead of [1].

Regards,
Ikegami

>
>> My original point was that maintainers would almost always add
>> a Link tag at the end, containing the mailing-list thread about the
>> patch being applied. Just saying in the commit log "see the link below"
>> then becomes misleading.
> Maybe, but OTOH that link is normally at the end, which kinda makes it
> obvious.
>
>> [...]
> Ciao, Thorsten