Patchwork [U-Boot,v2] sf: macronix: add MX25L4005 and MX25L8005

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Mike Frysinger
Date July 8, 2011, 8:31 p.m.
Message ID <1310157072-27512-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/103936/
State Accepted
Delegated to: Wolfgang Denk
Headers show

Comments

Mike Frysinger - July 8, 2011, 8:31 p.m.
From: Macpaul Lin <macpaul@andestech.com>

Add support of MX25L4005 and MX25L8005 according to the datasheet
http://www.mct.net/download/macronix/mx25l8005.pdf

This patch has been tested with MX25L4005 and MX25L8005

Signed-off-by: Macpaul Lin <macpaul@andestech.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
---
v2
	- tweak summary

 drivers/mtd/spi/macronix.c |   16 ++++++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Wolfgang Denk - July 9, 2011, 5:16 a.m.
Dear Mike Frysinger,

In message <1310157072-27512-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> you wrote:
> From: Macpaul Lin <macpaul@andestech.com>
> 
> Add support of MX25L4005 and MX25L8005 according to the datasheet
> http://www.mct.net/download/macronix/mx25l8005.pdf
> 
> This patch has been tested with MX25L4005 and MX25L8005
> 
> Signed-off-by: Macpaul Lin <macpaul@andestech.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
> ---
> v2
> 	- tweak summary

This is an identical repost of 
06/28 Mike Frysinger     [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/9] sf: spansion: add support for S25FL129P_64K
             http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/102129


Your "changelog":

	- tweak summary

is a lie, as NOTHING changes (except for the "[PATCH 1/9]" versus
"[PATCH v2]" part).


I have explained to you MANY times that YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED to resend
unchanged patches.

I feel you are intentionally provoking me.

Or am I missing somethign?



Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk
Graeme Russ - July 9, 2011, 6:10 a.m.
Hi Wolfgang,

On 09/07/11 15:16, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Mike Frysinger,
> 
> In message <1310157072-27512-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>> From: Macpaul Lin <macpaul@andestech.com>
>>
>> Add support of MX25L4005 and MX25L8005 according to the datasheet
>> http://www.mct.net/download/macronix/mx25l8005.pdf
>>
>> This patch has been tested with MX25L4005 and MX25L8005
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Macpaul Lin <macpaul@andestech.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
>> ---
>> v2
>> 	- tweak summary
> 
> This is an identical repost of 
> 06/28 Mike Frysinger     [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/9] sf: spansion: add support for S25FL129P_64K
>              http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/102129
> 
> 
> Your "changelog":
> 
> 	- tweak summary
> 
> is a lie, as NOTHING changes (except for the "[PATCH 1/9]" versus
> "[PATCH v2]" part).
> 
> 
> I have explained to you MANY times that YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED to resend
> unchanged patches.
> 
> I feel you are intentionally provoking me.
> 
> Or am I missing somethign?

The 'Subject' (Summary??) has changed:

Old:
[U-Boot] [PATCH] mtd/spi/macronix.c: add MX25L4005 and MX25L8005

New (and imho improved):
[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] sf: macronix: add MX25L4005 and MX25L8005

While the actual patch itself is identical, there is a change to what would
ultimately end up in git - How should we treat such trivial changes? It
seems to me that the maintainers will tweak this kind of detail at their
discretion and simply post an 'Applied with updated summary' to the ML - Is
this your preferred option?

Regards,

Graeme
Mike Frysinger - July 9, 2011, 6:43 a.m.
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 01:16, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> This is an identical repost of
> 06/28 Mike Frysinger     [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/9] sf: spansion: add support for S25FL129P_64K
>             http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/102129

you already made it clear that you NAK-ed all of the patches posted on
June 28th.  and since you refused to take any pull requests of the
original patches (again, having nothing to do with the patches posted
on June 28th), my only recourse is to send the few that had minor
modifications to the changelog in response to the original patch that
they originated from (previous to June 28th) with the "reply-to-id"
set and the changelog of the update.

i really have nfc what your logic is here.  i cant send pull requests
of the original patches, you NAK updated patches lacking
reply-to-id/history (i.e. the patch series on June 28th), and when i
send patches with reply-to-id/history to the original patches, you
start rejecting those too.  at this point, you've blocked every avenue
possible for me to post patches.  ive shown logic behind my actions
and rather than point out exactly what you have a problem with, you
vaguely refer to "the rules" which really doesnt help at all.
-mike

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/macronix.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/macronix.c
index ff66f2a..90aa657 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi/macronix.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/macronix.c
@@ -71,6 +71,22 @@  static inline struct macronix_spi_flash *to_macronix_spi_flash(struct spi_flash
 
 static const struct macronix_spi_flash_params macronix_spi_flash_table[] = {
 	{
+		.idcode = 0x2013,
+		.page_size = 256,
+		.pages_per_sector = 16,
+		.sectors_per_block = 16,
+		.nr_blocks = 8,
+		.name = "MX25L4005",
+	},
+	{
+		.idcode = 0x2014,
+		.page_size = 256,
+		.pages_per_sector = 16,
+		.sectors_per_block = 16,
+		.nr_blocks = 16,
+		.name = "MX25L8005",
+	},
+	{
 		.idcode = 0x2015,
 		.page_size = 256,
 		.pages_per_sector = 16,