On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > 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
Thanks Peter. I'm not familiar with the "properties" and how they are used. I think that the device width is likely only of interest internally, so I won't add a device-width property. Roy
