On 08/04/2019 05:36 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
> External E-Mail
>
>
> Hi Tudor,
>
> On 31-Jul-19 2:33 PM, tudor.amba...@microchip.com wrote:
>> From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezil...@bootlin.com>
>>
>> Move the locking hooks in a separate struct so that we have just
>> one field to update when we change the locking implementation.
>>
>> stm_locking_ops, the legacy locking operations, can be overwritten
>> later on by implementing manufacturer specific default_init() hooks.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezil...@bootlin.com>
>> [tudor.amba...@microchip.com: use ->default_init() hook]
>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.amba...@microchip.com>
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -1782,7 +1788,7 @@ static int spi_nor_is_locked(struct mtd_info *mtd,
>> loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> - ret = nor->flash_is_locked(nor, ofs, len);
>> + ret = nor->locking_ops->is_locked(nor, ofs, len);
>>
>> spi_nor_unlock_and_unprep(nor, SPI_NOR_OPS_LOCK);
>> return ret;
>> @@ -4805,6 +4811,10 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char
>> *name,
>> nor->quad_enable = spansion_quad_enable;
>> nor->set_4byte = spansion_set_4byte;
>>
>> + /* Default locking operations. */
>> + if (info->flags & SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK)
>> + nor->locking_ops = &stm_locking_ops;
>> +
>
> This condition is different than how lock/unlock ops are populated
> today. We would need to add SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK to all SNOR_MFR_ST and
> SNOR_MFR_MICRON entries to be backward compatible or keep the condition
> as is.
Will do, thanks!
>
>> /* Init flash parameters based on flash_info struct and SFDP */
>> spi_nor_init_params(nor, ¶ms);
>>
>> @@ -4819,21 +4829,6 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char
>> *name,
>> mtd->_read = spi_nor_read;
>> mtd->_resume = spi_nor_resume;
>>
>> - /* NOR protection support for STmicro/Micron chips and similar */
>> - if (JEDEC_MFR(info) == SNOR_MFR_ST ||
>> - JEDEC_MFR(info) == SNOR_MFR_MICRON ||
>> - info->flags & SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) {
>> - nor->flash_lock = stm_lock;
>> - nor->flash_unlock = stm_unlock;
>> - nor->flash_is_locked = stm_is_locked;
>> - }
>> -
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h b/include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h
>> index a434ab7a53e6..bd68ec5a10e7 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h
>> @@ -425,9 +425,23 @@ struct spi_nor {
>> int (*set_4byte)(struct spi_nor *nor, bool enable);
>> int (*clear_sr_bp)(struct spi_nor *nor);
>>
>> + const struct spi_nor_locking_ops *locking_ops;
>> +
>
> Also, to be consistent, document this new member.
Will do.
>
>
>> void *priv;
>> };
>>
>> +/**
>> + * struct spi_nor_locking_ops - SPI NOR locking methods
>> + * @lock: lock a region of the SPI NOR
>> + * @unlock: unlock a region of the SPI NOR
>> + * @is_locked: check if a region of the SPI NOR is completely locked
>> + */
>> +struct spi_nor_locking_ops {
>> + int (*lock)(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
>> + int (*unlock)(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
>> + int (*is_locked)(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
>
> checkpatch does not like uint64_t. Please changes these to size_t
This respects what struct mtd_info is expecting:
int (*_lock) (struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
int (*_unlock) (struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
int (*_is_locked) (struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
I haven't seen the warnings, would you mind pasting them?
./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict
6-7-mtd-spi-nor-Rework-the-SPI-NOR-lock-unlock-logic.patch
total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 102 lines checked
6-7-mtd-spi-nor-Rework-the-SPI-NOR-lock-unlock-logic.patch has no obvious style
problems and is ready for submission.
Cheers,
ta
>
> Regards
> Vignesh
>
>
>> +};
>> +
>> static u64 __maybe_unused
>> spi_nor_region_is_last(const struct spi_nor_erase_region *region)
>> {
>>
