[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] sf: Macronix additional chips supported

[Prafulla Wadaskar]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Frysinger [mailto:vapier at gentoo.org] 
> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 11:31 PM
> To: u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Cc: Prafulla Wadaskar; Manas Saksena; Ronen Shitrit; Nicolas 
> Pitre; Ashish Karkare; Prabhanjan Sarnaik; Lennert Buijtenhek
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] sf: Macronix additional 
> chips supported
> 
> On Friday 03 July 2009 13:28:01 Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
> > new chips supported:-
> > MX25L1605D, MX25L3205D, MX25L6405D, MX25L12855E out of which 
> > MX25L6405D and MX25L12855E tested on Kirkwood platforms
> >
> > Modified the Macronix flash support to use 2 bytes of device id 
> > instead of
> > 1 This was required to support MX25L12855E
> >
> > Contributor: Piyush Shah <spiyush at marvell.com>
> 
> a contributor really should be a signed-off-by
I will correct this

<snip>
> > +	{
> > +		.idcode0 = MXIC_ID_MT_MX2512855E,
> > +		.idcode1 = MXIC_ID_MD_MX2512855E,
> > +		.page_size = 256,
> > +		.pages_per_sector = 16,
> > +		.sectors_per_block = 16,
> > +		.nr_blocks = 256,
> > +		.name = "MX25L12855E",
> > +	},
> >  };
> 
> can you compare the code size to see if combining the id's in 
> a u16 is better than comparing multiple u8's ?
At this moment we can save 28bytes with above suggestions,
but Mx25L12805D and MX25L12855E have different memory types (0x20, 0x26 resp), and they have different protection algorithm features which I was trying to expose through "protect" command interface in my next patch, then we will need this abstraction.
So I wish to keep this.
What do you think?

> 
> and creating a dedicated list of defines for the id's isnt 
> really necessary.  
> using them inline in the structure itself is fine.
This is taken care...

> > Change log:-
> > v2: white space removed for clean patch apply build error fixed
> 
> looks like you broke whitespace in this version.  you changed 
> these if statements to use leading spaces, not tabs.
:-)

Regards..
Prafulla . .