If, for instance, the entire flash is already unlocked and I try to mtd_unlock() the entire device, I don't expect to see an EINVAL error. It should just silently succeed. Ditto for mtd_lock().
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <[email protected]> --- drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c | 12 ++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c index c19674573eec..3a08aa53c171 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c @@ -518,8 +518,12 @@ static int stm_lock(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len) status_new = (status_old & ~mask) | val; + /* Don't bother if they're the same */ + if (status_new == status_old) + return 0; + /* Only modify protection if it will not unlock other areas */ - if ((status_new & mask) <= (status_old & mask)) + if ((status_new & mask) < (status_old & mask)) return -EINVAL; write_enable(nor); @@ -576,8 +580,12 @@ static int stm_unlock(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len) status_new = (status_old & ~mask) | val; + /* Don't bother if they're the same */ + if (status_new == status_old) + return 0; + /* Only modify protection if it will not lock other areas */ - if ((status_new & mask) >= (status_old & mask)) + if ((status_new & mask) > (status_old & mask)) return -EINVAL; write_enable(nor); -- 1.7.9.5
