| Message ID | 20210727045222.905056-11-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mtd: spi-nor: Handle ID collisions and clean params init | expand |
On 27/07/21 07:51AM, Tudor Ambarus wrote: > Locking ops are not discoverable via SFDP, use late_init() call. > > Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com> One question though. Have you tested these flashes (this one and the ones in the previous patch) to make sure you are not causing any regressions? While I don't see anything wrong with the patches, it would be good to have some test reports. > --- > drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c | 8 ++------ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c > index 980f4c09c91d..29d100febdbf 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c > @@ -46,15 +46,11 @@ static const struct spi_nor_locking_ops sst26vf_locking_ops = { > .is_locked = sst26vf_is_locked, > }; > > -static void sst26vf_default_init(struct spi_nor *nor) > +static void sst26vf_late_init(struct spi_nor *nor) > { > nor->params->locking_ops = &sst26vf_locking_ops; > } > > -static const struct spi_nor_fixups sst26vf_fixups = { > - .default_init = sst26vf_default_init, > -}; > - > static const struct flash_info sst_parts[] = { > /* SST -- large erase sizes are "overlays", "sectors" are 4K */ > { "sst25vf040b", INFO(0xbf258d, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, > @@ -88,7 +84,7 @@ static const struct flash_info sst_parts[] = { > { "sst26vf064b", INFO(0xbf2643, 0, 64 * 1024, 128, > SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ | > SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK | SPI_NOR_SWP_IS_VOLATILE) > - .fixups = &sst26vf_fixups }, > + .late_init = sst26vf_late_init}, > }; > > static int sst_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len, > -- > 2.25.1 >
Am 2021-07-27 06:51, schrieb Tudor Ambarus: > Locking ops are not discoverable via SFDP, use late_init() call. > > Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> Reviewed-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
On 8/16/21 10:09 PM, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On 27/07/21 07:51AM, Tudor Ambarus wrote: >> Locking ops are not discoverable via SFDP, use late_init() call. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> > > Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com> > > One question though. Have you tested these flashes (this one and the > ones in the previous patch) to make sure you are not causing any > regressions? While I don't see anything wrong with the patches, it would > be good to have some test reports. sst26vf064b was tested, I thought I specified it in the cover letter. I haven't tested locking, but will do. It's not a tragedy if we slip few bugs anyway, we're here to squash them. > >> --- >> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c | 8 ++------ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c >> index 980f4c09c91d..29d100febdbf 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c >> @@ -46,15 +46,11 @@ static const struct spi_nor_locking_ops sst26vf_locking_ops = { >> .is_locked = sst26vf_is_locked, >> }; >> >> -static void sst26vf_default_init(struct spi_nor *nor) >> +static void sst26vf_late_init(struct spi_nor *nor) >> { >> nor->params->locking_ops = &sst26vf_locking_ops; >> } >> >> -static const struct spi_nor_fixups sst26vf_fixups = { >> - .default_init = sst26vf_default_init, >> -}; >> - >> static const struct flash_info sst_parts[] = { >> /* SST -- large erase sizes are "overlays", "sectors" are 4K */ >> { "sst25vf040b", INFO(0xbf258d, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, >> @@ -88,7 +84,7 @@ static const struct flash_info sst_parts[] = { >> { "sst26vf064b", INFO(0xbf2643, 0, 64 * 1024, 128, >> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ | >> SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK | SPI_NOR_SWP_IS_VOLATILE) >> - .fixups = &sst26vf_fixups }, >> + .late_init = sst26vf_late_init}, >> }; >> >> static int sst_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len, >> -- >> 2.25.1 >> > > -- > Regards, > Pratyush Yadav > Texas Instruments Inc. >
On 01/10/21 11:43AM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: > On 8/16/21 10:09 PM, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > > > On 27/07/21 07:51AM, Tudor Ambarus wrote: > >> Locking ops are not discoverable via SFDP, use late_init() call. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com> > > > > One question though. Have you tested these flashes (this one and the > > ones in the previous patch) to make sure you are not causing any > > regressions? While I don't see anything wrong with the patches, it would > > be good to have some test reports. > > sst26vf064b was tested, I thought I specified it in the cover letter. You did indeed. I missed that when reading the series. Sorry. > I haven't tested locking, but will do. It's not a tragedy if we slip few > bugs anyway, we're here to squash them. > > > >> --- > >> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c | 8 ++------ > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c > >> index 980f4c09c91d..29d100febdbf 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c > >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c > >> @@ -46,15 +46,11 @@ static const struct spi_nor_locking_ops sst26vf_locking_ops = { > >> .is_locked = sst26vf_is_locked, > >> }; > >> > >> -static void sst26vf_default_init(struct spi_nor *nor) > >> +static void sst26vf_late_init(struct spi_nor *nor) > >> { > >> nor->params->locking_ops = &sst26vf_locking_ops; > >> } > >> > >> -static const struct spi_nor_fixups sst26vf_fixups = { > >> - .default_init = sst26vf_default_init, > >> -}; > >> - > >> static const struct flash_info sst_parts[] = { > >> /* SST -- large erase sizes are "overlays", "sectors" are 4K */ > >> { "sst25vf040b", INFO(0xbf258d, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, > >> @@ -88,7 +84,7 @@ static const struct flash_info sst_parts[] = { > >> { "sst26vf064b", INFO(0xbf2643, 0, 64 * 1024, 128, > >> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ | > >> SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK | SPI_NOR_SWP_IS_VOLATILE) > >> - .fixups = &sst26vf_fixups }, > >> + .late_init = sst26vf_late_init}, > >> }; > >> > >> static int sst_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len, > >> -- > >> 2.25.1 > >> > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Pratyush Yadav > > Texas Instruments Inc. > > >
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c index 980f4c09c91d..29d100febdbf 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c @@ -46,15 +46,11 @@ static const struct spi_nor_locking_ops sst26vf_locking_ops = { .is_locked = sst26vf_is_locked, }; -static void sst26vf_default_init(struct spi_nor *nor) +static void sst26vf_late_init(struct spi_nor *nor) { nor->params->locking_ops = &sst26vf_locking_ops; } -static const struct spi_nor_fixups sst26vf_fixups = { - .default_init = sst26vf_default_init, -}; - static const struct flash_info sst_parts[] = { /* SST -- large erase sizes are "overlays", "sectors" are 4K */ { "sst25vf040b", INFO(0xbf258d, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, @@ -88,7 +84,7 @@ static const struct flash_info sst_parts[] = { { "sst26vf064b", INFO(0xbf2643, 0, 64 * 1024, 128, SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK | SPI_NOR_SWP_IS_VOLATILE) - .fixups = &sst26vf_fixups }, + .late_init = sst26vf_late_init}, }; static int sst_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len,
Locking ops are not discoverable via SFDP, use late_init() call. Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> --- drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c | 8 ++------ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)