On 18 October 2013 14:54, Roy Franz <roy.fr...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> Probably instead of a single "width" property we should have two, >> similar to the device tree binding's pair: >> - bank-width : Width (in bytes) of the bank. Equal to the >> device width times the number of interleaved chips. >> - device-width : (optional) Width of a single mtd chip. If >> omitted, assumed to be equal to 'bank-width'.
>> However I'm not very familiar with how flash hardware works... > You are correct - we really do want to mask based on the device > width, as that is what the > actual flash chips will see. Lacking the device width I used the > writeblock size. Thinking about this more, > this will not work for 8 bit devices used together, as the mask size > will be greater than 8 bits and the writeblock size > will be mis-interpreted like it is now. > I'll work on adding a device-size property to the pflash* > implementations. It looks like this will affect about 20 platforms. > For the platforms that I am not familiar with I plan just set > bank-width==device-width as that should result in the unchanged > behavior. Yes, you should make the default for the device-width property be to be the same as the bank-width, since that's what we currently implement; then we can just change the platforms where we know that's wrong. NB: probably best to leave the existing 'width' property with the name it has, rather than renaming it to 'bank-width'. thanks -- PMM
