>There are a lot of changes happening/requested around this code. I also
>proposed some patch touching this code, see
>https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/377917/
>Right now there is a slow ongoing work on fixing some m25p80 regression, which
>also may touch the code you change. So I'll suggest postponing this patch
>until we get a regression fixed and then work on this hacky code again.
Thanks for your concerns.But for the same deivce id with the different extended
id and
the same device name with the different device id issue, in your patch,this
doesn't take
into account. I have encountered this situation. for example:
first condition (for the same deivce id with the different extended id):
{ "n25q064", INFO(0x20ba17, 0, 64 * 1024, 128, 0) },
{ "n25ml064", INFO(0x20ba17, 0x1234, 64 * 1024, 256, 0) },//right
device data
{ "n25q128a13", INFO(0x20ba18, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, 0) },
{ "n25q256a", INFO(0x20ba19, 0, 64 * 1024, 512, SECT_4K) },
{ "n25q512a", INFO(0x20bb20, 0, 64 * 1024, 1024, SECT_4K) },
second condition(the same device id with the different device name):
{ "n25tl28", INFO(0x20ba17, 0, 64 * 1024, 128, 0) },
{ "n25ml028", INFO(0x20ba17, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, 0) },//right
device data
{ "n25q128a13", INFO(0x20ba18, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, 0) },
{ "n25q256a", INFO(0x20ba19, 0, 64 * 1024, 512, SECT_4K) },
{ "n25q512a", INFO(0x20bb20, 0, 64 * 1024, 1024, SECT_4K) },
N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{����zX����ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v�������zZ+��+zf���h���~����i���z� �w���?�����&�)ߢf��^jǫy�m��@A�a���
0��h���i
