On 07.09.2024 00:09, Marek Vasut wrote:
The w25q16dw entry exists twice in spi_nor_ids, remove the less complete variant of the entry and keep only one copy of it.
Fixes: baef13ec9d59 ("mtd: spi-nor-ids: Add support for flashes tested by xilinx") Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Reviewed-by: Michal Simek michal.simek@amd.com
Cc: Andre Przywara andre.przywara@arm.com Cc: Ashok Reddy Soma ashok.reddy.soma@amd.com Cc: Dhruva Gole d-gole@ti.com Cc: Jagan Teki jagan@amarulasolutions.com Cc: Jim Liu jim.t90615@gmail.com Cc: Jonas Karlman jonas@kwiboo.se Cc: Michal Simek michal.simek@amd.com Cc: Neal Frager neal.frager@amd.com Cc: Prasad Kummari prasad.kummari@amd.com Cc: Teik Heng Chong teik.heng.chong@intel.com Cc: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com Cc: Vignesh R vigneshr@ti.com Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de
drivers/mtd/spi/spi-nor-ids.c | 8 ++------ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/spi-nor-ids.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/spi-nor-ids.c index 88709a52b3a..d1389e681d6 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/spi-nor-ids.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/spi-nor-ids.c @@ -430,11 +430,6 @@ const struct flash_info spi_nor_ids[] = { { INFO("w25x05", 0xef3010, 0, 64 * 1024, 1, SECT_4K) }, { INFO("w25x40", 0xef3013, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, SECT_4K) }, { INFO("w25x16", 0xef3015, 0, 64 * 1024, 32, SECT_4K) },
- {
INFO("w25q16dw", 0xef6015, 0, 64 * 1024, 32,SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ |SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK | SPI_NOR_HAS_TB)- }, { INFO("w25x32", 0xef3016, 0, 64 * 1024, 64, SECT_4K) }, { INFO("w25q20cl", 0xef4012, 0, 64 * 1024, 4, SECT_4K) }, { INFO("w25q20bw", 0xef5012, 0, 64 * 1024, 4, SECT_4K) },
@@ -442,7 +437,8 @@ const struct flash_info spi_nor_ids[] = { { INFO("w25q32", 0xef4016, 0, 64 * 1024, 64, SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) }, { INFO("w25q16dw", 0xef6015, 0, 64 * 1024, 32,
SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ)
SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ |SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK | SPI_NOR_HAS_TB)
you probably chose to keep the second entry to have some sort of alphabetical order. I'd keep the first entry as the second entry was never used anyway, then reorder alphabetically if one cares. Just nitpicks so fine by me either way:
Reviewed-by: Tudor Ambarus tudor.ambarus@linaro.org
}, { INFO("w25q32dw", 0xef6016, 0, 64 * 1024, 64,