Hi Bin,
On 10/11/2015 08:43 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
The spi-flash is converted to driver model, which is good, as there are spi flashes from different vendors which have different op codes thus need different drivers to handle. But for cfi-flash, almost every cfi-flash we see in the market conforms to the same CFI spec, thus we only need one driver (drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c) to work with all these flashes, right? Unless I am missing something recently, eg: some vendors started to created flashes which are not 100% compatible with the CFI spec? If this is the only single driver, I don't see the need to create a special driver model uclass for it. Just an open discussion. I am not saying we should, or we should not :)
I had the same question myself. But I found that there are several uclasses which has only one driver. No worries. :)
It is not just base address. There is device binding with compatible ids. There will be resources allocation, too. Please don't limit your imagination by my poor coding skill.
All there can be obtained from device tree. Being a non-DM driver does not prevent you from using device tree.
It is true. Yet using driver model does have some advantages over non-DM. It is more unified and dynamic. So I chose the DM way when I have to add device tree binding. You may find my patch quite trivial. Thanks to the DM framework.
Best regards, Thomas