Hi,
Changelog
v3:
patch nand_lock_area/nand_unlock_area.
fixed kbuidtest robot warnings and reviewer's comments.
v2:
Patch nand_lock() & nand_unlock() for MTD->_lock/_unlock default call-back
function replacement.
Patch nand_suspend() & nand_resume() with manufacturer specific operation.
v1:
Patch manufacturer post_init for MTD->_lock/_unlock & MTD->_suspend/_resume
replacement.
thanks for your time & review.
Mason
Mason Yang (4):
mtd: rawnand: Add support manufacturer specific lock/unlock operation
mtd: rawnand: Add support Macronix Block Protection function
mtd: rawnand: Add support manufacturer specific suspend/resume
operation
mtd: rawnand: Add support Macronix deep power down mode
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 47 +++++++++--
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c | 146 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h | 9 +++
3 files changed, 197 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
--
1.9.1
Add nand_lock() & nand_unlock() for manufacturer specific lock & unlock
operation while the device supports Block Portection function.
Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <[email protected]>
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h | 5 +++++
2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
index f64e3b6..769be81 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
@@ -4360,6 +4360,38 @@ static void nand_shutdown(struct mtd_info *mtd)
nand_suspend(mtd);
}
+/**
+ * nand_lock - [MTD Interface] Lock the NAND flash
+ * @mtd: MTD device structure
+ * @ofs: offset byte address
+ * @len: number of bytes to lock (must be a multiple of block/page size)
+ */
+static int nand_lock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
+{
+ struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
+
+ if (!chip->lock_area)
+ return -ENOTSUPP;
+
+ return chip->lock_area(chip, ofs, len);
+}
+
+/**
+ * nand_unlock - [MTD Interface] Unlock the NAND flash
+ * @mtd: MTD device structure
+ * @ofs: offset byte address
+ * @len: number of bytes to unlock (must be a multiple of block/page size)
+ */
+static int nand_unlock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
+{
+ struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
+
+ if (!chip->unlock_area)
+ return -ENOTSUPP;
+
+ return chip->unlock_area(chip, ofs, len);
+}
+
/* Set default functions */
static void nand_set_defaults(struct nand_chip *chip)
{
@@ -5786,8 +5818,8 @@ static int nand_scan_tail(struct nand_chip *chip)
mtd->_read_oob = nand_read_oob;
mtd->_write_oob = nand_write_oob;
mtd->_sync = nand_sync;
- mtd->_lock = NULL;
- mtd->_unlock = NULL;
+ mtd->_lock = nand_lock;
+ mtd->_unlock = nand_unlock;
mtd->_suspend = nand_suspend;
mtd->_resume = nand_resume;
mtd->_reboot = nand_shutdown;
diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
index 4ab9bcc..bc2fa3c 100644
--- a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
+++ b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
@@ -1077,6 +1077,8 @@ struct nand_legacy {
* @manufacturer: [INTERN] Contains manufacturer information
* @manufacturer.desc: [INTERN] Contains manufacturer's description
* @manufacturer.priv: [INTERN] Contains manufacturer private information
+ * @lock_area: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND chip lock operation
+ * @unlock_area: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND chip unlock operation
*/
struct nand_chip {
@@ -1136,6 +1138,9 @@ struct nand_chip {
const struct nand_manufacturer *desc;
void *priv;
} manufacturer;
+
+ int (*lock_area)(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
+ int (*unlock_area)(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
};
extern const struct mtd_ooblayout_ops nand_ooblayout_sp_ops;
--
1.9.1
Macronix AC/AD series support using SET_FEATURES to change
Block Portection and Unprotection. By GET_FEATURES operation
to detect if block protection support.
Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c
index 3ff7ce0..a4cd12c 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c
@@ -11,6 +11,10 @@
#define MACRONIX_READ_RETRY_BIT BIT(0)
#define MACRONIX_NUM_READ_RETRY_MODES 6
+#define ONFI_FEATURE_ADDR_MXIC_PROTECTION 0xA0
+#define MXIC_BLOCK_PROTECTION_ALL_LOCK 0x38
+#define MXIC_BLOCK_PROTECTION_ALL_UNLOCK 0x0
+
struct nand_onfi_vendor_macronix {
u8 reserved;
u8 reliability_func;
@@ -91,6 +95,73 @@ static void macronix_nand_fix_broken_get_timings(struct nand_chip *chip)
ONFI_FEATURE_ADDR_TIMING_MODE, 1);
}
+/*
+ * Macronix NAND supports Block Protection by Protectoin(PT) pin;
+ * active high at power-on which protects the entire chip even the #WP is
+ * disabled. Lock/unlock protection area can be partition according to
+ * protection bits, i.e. upper 1/2 locked, upper 1/4 locked and so on.
+ */
+static int mxic_nand_lock(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
+{
+ u8 feature[ONFI_SUBFEATURE_PARAM_LEN];
+ int ret;
+
+ feature[0] = MXIC_BLOCK_PROTECTION_ALL_LOCK;
+ nand_select_target(chip, 0);
+ ret = nand_set_features(chip, ONFI_FEATURE_ADDR_MXIC_PROTECTION,
+ feature);
+ nand_deselect_target(chip);
+ if (ret)
+ pr_err("%s all blocks failed\n", __func__);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static int mxic_nand_unlock(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
+{
+ u8 feature[ONFI_SUBFEATURE_PARAM_LEN];
+ int ret;
+
+ feature[0] = MXIC_BLOCK_PROTECTION_ALL_UNLOCK;
+ nand_select_target(chip, 0);
+ ret = nand_set_features(chip, ONFI_FEATURE_ADDR_MXIC_PROTECTION,
+ feature);
+ nand_deselect_target(chip);
+ if (ret)
+ pr_err("%s all blocks failed\n", __func__);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static void macronix_nand_block_protection_support(struct nand_chip *chip)
+{
+ u8 feature[ONFI_SUBFEATURE_PARAM_LEN];
+ int ret;
+
+ bitmap_set(chip->parameters.get_feature_list,
+ ONFI_FEATURE_ADDR_MXIC_PROTECTION, 1);
+
+ feature[0] = MXIC_BLOCK_PROTECTION_ALL_UNLOCK;
+ nand_select_target(chip, 0);
+ ret = nand_get_features(chip, ONFI_FEATURE_ADDR_MXIC_PROTECTION,
+ feature);
+ nand_deselect_target(chip);
+ if (ret || feature[0] != MXIC_BLOCK_PROTECTION_ALL_LOCK) {
+ if (ret)
+ pr_err("Block protection check failed\n");
+
+ bitmap_clear(chip->parameters.get_feature_list,
+ ONFI_FEATURE_ADDR_MXIC_PROTECTION, 1);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ bitmap_set(chip->parameters.set_feature_list,
+ ONFI_FEATURE_ADDR_MXIC_PROTECTION, 1);
+
+ chip->lock_area = mxic_nand_lock;
+ chip->unlock_area = mxic_nand_unlock;
+}
+
static int macronix_nand_init(struct nand_chip *chip)
{
if (nand_is_slc(chip))
@@ -98,6 +169,7 @@ static int macronix_nand_init(struct nand_chip *chip)
macronix_nand_fix_broken_get_timings(chip);
macronix_nand_onfi_init(chip);
+ macronix_nand_block_protection_support(chip);
return 0;
}
--
1.9.1
Patch nand_suspend() & nand_resume() for manufacturer specific
suspend/resume operation.
Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <[email protected]>
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 11 ++++++++---
include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
index 769be81..b44e460 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
@@ -4327,7 +4327,9 @@ static int nand_suspend(struct mtd_info *mtd)
struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
mutex_lock(&chip->lock);
- chip->suspended = 1;
+ if (chip->_suspend)
+ if (!chip->_suspend(chip))
+ chip->suspended = 1;
mutex_unlock(&chip->lock);
return 0;
@@ -4342,11 +4344,14 @@ static void nand_resume(struct mtd_info *mtd)
struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
mutex_lock(&chip->lock);
- if (chip->suspended)
+ if (chip->suspended) {
+ if (chip->_resume)
+ chip->_resume(chip);
chip->suspended = 0;
- else
+ } else {
pr_err("%s called for a chip which is not in suspended state\n",
__func__);
+ }
mutex_unlock(&chip->lock);
}
diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
index bc2fa3c..c0055ed 100644
--- a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
+++ b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
@@ -1064,6 +1064,8 @@ struct nand_legacy {
* @lock: lock protecting the suspended field. Also used to
* serialize accesses to the NAND device.
* @suspended: set to 1 when the device is suspended, 0 when it's not.
+ * @_suspend: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND device suspend operation
+ * @_resume: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND device resume operation
* @bbt: [INTERN] bad block table pointer
* @bbt_td: [REPLACEABLE] bad block table descriptor for flash
* lookup.
@@ -1119,6 +1121,8 @@ struct nand_chip {
struct mutex lock;
unsigned int suspended : 1;
+ int (*_suspend)(struct nand_chip *chip);
+ void (*_resume)(struct nand_chip *chip);
uint8_t *oob_poi;
struct nand_controller *controller;
--
1.9.1
Macronix AD series support deep power down mode for a minimum
power consumption state.
Patch nand_suspend() & nand_resume() by Macronix specific deep
power down mode command and exit it.
Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 74 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c
index a4cd12c..ca46ec1 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
* Author: Boris Brezillon <[email protected]>
*/
+#include "linux/delay.h"
#include "internals.h"
#define MACRONIX_READ_RETRY_BIT BIT(0)
@@ -15,6 +16,8 @@
#define MXIC_BLOCK_PROTECTION_ALL_LOCK 0x38
#define MXIC_BLOCK_PROTECTION_ALL_UNLOCK 0x0
+#define MXIC_CMD_POWER_DOWN 0xB9
+
struct nand_onfi_vendor_macronix {
u8 reserved;
u8 reliability_func;
@@ -162,6 +165,76 @@ static void macronix_nand_block_protection_support(struct nand_chip *chip)
chip->unlock_area = mxic_nand_unlock;
}
+static int nand_power_down_op(struct nand_chip *chip)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ if (nand_has_exec_op(chip)) {
+ struct nand_op_instr instrs[] = {
+ NAND_OP_CMD(MXIC_CMD_POWER_DOWN, 0),
+ };
+
+ struct nand_operation op = NAND_OPERATION(chip->cur_cs, instrs);
+
+ ret = nand_exec_op(chip, &op);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ } else {
+ chip->legacy.cmdfunc(chip, MXIC_CMD_POWER_DOWN, -1, -1);
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int mxic_nand_suspend(struct nand_chip *chip)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ nand_select_target(chip, 0);
+ ret = nand_power_down_op(chip);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ pr_err("Suspending MXIC NAND chip failed (%d)\n", ret);
+ nand_deselect_target(chip);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static void mxic_nand_resume(struct nand_chip *chip)
+{
+ /*
+ * Toggle #CS pin to resume NAND device and don't care
+ * of the others CLE, #WE, #RE pins status.
+ * A NAND controller ensure it is able to assert/de-assert #CS
+ * by sending any byte over the NAND bus.
+ * i.e.,
+ * NAND power down command or reset command w/o R/B# status checking.
+ */
+ nand_select_target(chip, 0);
+ nand_power_down_op(chip);
+ /* The minimum of a recovery time tRDP is 35 us */
+ usleep_range(35, 100);
+ nand_deselect_target(chip);
+}
+
+static void macronix_nand_deep_power_down_support(struct nand_chip *chip)
+{
+ int i;
+ static const char * const deep_power_down_dev[] = {
+ "MX30UF1G28AD",
+ "MX30UF2G28AD",
+ "MX30UF4G28AD",
+ };
+
+ i = match_string(deep_power_down_dev, ARRAY_SIZE(deep_power_down_dev),
+ chip->parameters.model);
+ if (i < 0)
+ return;
+
+ chip->_suspend = mxic_nand_suspend;
+ chip->_resume = mxic_nand_resume;
+}
+
static int macronix_nand_init(struct nand_chip *chip)
{
if (nand_is_slc(chip))
@@ -170,6 +243,7 @@ static int macronix_nand_init(struct nand_chip *chip)
macronix_nand_fix_broken_get_timings(chip);
macronix_nand_onfi_init(chip);
macronix_nand_block_protection_support(chip);
+ macronix_nand_deep_power_down_support(chip);
return 0;
}
--
1.9.1
Hi Mason,
Mason Yang <[email protected]> wrote on Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:21:20
+0800:
> Hi,
>
> Changelog
>
> v3:
> patch nand_lock_area/nand_unlock_area.
> fixed kbuidtest robot warnings and reviewer's comments.
I know it is painful for the contributor but I really need more details
in the changelog. This is something I care about because I can speed-up
my reviews when I know what I already acked or not. "fixing reviewer's
comments" is way too vague, I have absolutely no idea of what I told
you last time :) So please, for the next iterations, be more verbose in
these changelogs! (that's fine for this one, I'll check myself).
Cheers,
Miquèl
Hi Miquel,
>
> Mason Yang <[email protected]> wrote on Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:21:20
> +0800:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Changelog
> >
> > v3:
> > patch nand_lock_area/nand_unlock_area.
> > fixed kbuidtest robot warnings and reviewer's comments.
>
> I know it is painful for the contributor but I really need more details
> in the changelog. This is something I care about because I can speed-up
okay, more changelog as
1. Patched the Kdoc for both lock_area/unlock_area and _suspend/_resume
2. Created a helper to read default protected value (after device power
on)
for protection function detection.
3. patched the prefix for Macronix deep power down command, 0xB9
4. Patched the description of mxic_nand_resume() and add a small sleeping
delay.
5. Created a helper for deep power down device part number detection.
> my reviews when I know what I already acked or not. "fixing reviewer's
> comments" is way too vague, I have absolutely no idea of what I told
> you last time :) So please, for the next iterations, be more verbose in
> these changelogs! (that's fine for this one, I'll check myself).
>
> Cheers,
> Miqu?l
thanks for your time and review.
Mason
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be
reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail
(and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive
this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as
well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be
informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is
prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws.
Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================
============================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail (and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================
Hi Mason,
[email protected] wrote on Tue, 10 Mar 2020 10:30:09 +0800:
> Hi Miquel,
>
> >
> > Mason Yang <[email protected]> wrote on Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:21:20
> > +0800:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Changelog
> > >
> > > v3:
> > > patch nand_lock_area/nand_unlock_area.
> > > fixed kbuidtest robot warnings and reviewer's comments.
> >
> > I know it is painful for the contributor but I really need more details
> > in the changelog. This is something I care about because I can speed-up
>
> okay, more changelog as
>
> 1. Patched the Kdoc for both lock_area/unlock_area and _suspend/_resume
> 2. Created a helper to read default protected value (after device power
> on)
> for protection function detection.
> 3. patched the prefix for Macronix deep power down command, 0xB9
> 4. Patched the description of mxic_nand_resume() and add a small sleeping
> delay.
> 5. Created a helper for deep power down device part number detection.
>
Way more descriptive! Thanks a lot.
Cheers,
Miquèl
On Tue, 2020-03-03 at 07:21:23 UTC, Mason Yang wrote:
> Patch nand_suspend() & nand_resume() for manufacturer specific
> suspend/resume operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <[email protected]>
> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
Applied to https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mtd/linux.git nand/next, thanks.
Miquel
On Tue, 2020-03-03 at 07:21:21 UTC, Mason Yang wrote:
> Add nand_lock() & nand_unlock() for manufacturer specific lock & unlock
> operation while the device supports Block Portection function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <[email protected]>
> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
Applied to https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mtd/linux.git nand/next, thanks.
Miquel
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:21:21 +0800
Mason Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
> Add nand_lock() & nand_unlock() for manufacturer specific lock & unlock
> operation while the device supports Block Portection function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <[email protected]>
> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
Reported-by on something that's not a fix doesn't make sense. I know
the 0day bot asked you to add this tag, but that should only be done if
you submit a separate patch, ideally with a Fixes tag. If the offending
patch has not been merged yet, you should just fix the commit and ignore
the Reported-by tag (you can mention who reported the problem in the
changelog though).
> Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> index f64e3b6..769be81 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> @@ -4360,6 +4360,38 @@ static void nand_shutdown(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> nand_suspend(mtd);
> }
>
> +/**
> + * nand_lock - [MTD Interface] Lock the NAND flash
> + * @mtd: MTD device structure
> + * @ofs: offset byte address
> + * @len: number of bytes to lock (must be a multiple of block/page size)
> + */
> +static int nand_lock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
> +{
> + struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
> +
> + if (!chip->lock_area)
> + return -ENOTSUPP;
> +
> + return chip->lock_area(chip, ofs, len);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * nand_unlock - [MTD Interface] Unlock the NAND flash
> + * @mtd: MTD device structure
> + * @ofs: offset byte address
> + * @len: number of bytes to unlock (must be a multiple of block/page size)
> + */
> +static int nand_unlock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
> +{
> + struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
> +
> + if (!chip->unlock_area)
> + return -ENOTSUPP;
> +
> + return chip->unlock_area(chip, ofs, len);
> +}
> +
> /* Set default functions */
> static void nand_set_defaults(struct nand_chip *chip)
> {
> @@ -5786,8 +5818,8 @@ static int nand_scan_tail(struct nand_chip *chip)
> mtd->_read_oob = nand_read_oob;
> mtd->_write_oob = nand_write_oob;
> mtd->_sync = nand_sync;
> - mtd->_lock = NULL;
> - mtd->_unlock = NULL;
> + mtd->_lock = nand_lock;
> + mtd->_unlock = nand_unlock;
> mtd->_suspend = nand_suspend;
> mtd->_resume = nand_resume;
> mtd->_reboot = nand_shutdown;
> diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> index 4ab9bcc..bc2fa3c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> @@ -1077,6 +1077,8 @@ struct nand_legacy {
> * @manufacturer: [INTERN] Contains manufacturer information
> * @manufacturer.desc: [INTERN] Contains manufacturer's description
> * @manufacturer.priv: [INTERN] Contains manufacturer private information
> + * @lock_area: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND chip lock operation
> + * @unlock_area: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND chip unlock operation
> */
>
> struct nand_chip {
> @@ -1136,6 +1138,9 @@ struct nand_chip {
> const struct nand_manufacturer *desc;
> void *priv;
> } manufacturer;
> +
> + int (*lock_area)(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
> + int (*unlock_area)(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
> };
>
> extern const struct mtd_ooblayout_ops nand_ooblayout_sp_ops;
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:21:23 +0800
Mason Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
> Patch nand_suspend() & nand_resume() for manufacturer specific
> suspend/resume operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <[email protected]>
> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 11 ++++++++---
> include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> index 769be81..b44e460 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> @@ -4327,7 +4327,9 @@ static int nand_suspend(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
>
> mutex_lock(&chip->lock);
> - chip->suspended = 1;
> + if (chip->_suspend)
> + if (!chip->_suspend(chip))
> + chip->suspended = 1;
> mutex_unlock(&chip->lock);
>
> return 0;
> @@ -4342,11 +4344,14 @@ static void nand_resume(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
>
> mutex_lock(&chip->lock);
> - if (chip->suspended)
> + if (chip->suspended) {
> + if (chip->_resume)
> + chip->_resume(chip);
> chip->suspended = 0;
> - else
> + } else {
> pr_err("%s called for a chip which is not in suspended state\n",
> __func__);
> + }
> mutex_unlock(&chip->lock);
> }
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> index bc2fa3c..c0055ed 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> @@ -1064,6 +1064,8 @@ struct nand_legacy {
> * @lock: lock protecting the suspended field. Also used to
> * serialize accesses to the NAND device.
> * @suspended: set to 1 when the device is suspended, 0 when it's not.
> + * @_suspend: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND device suspend operation
> + * @_resume: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND device resume operation
> * @bbt: [INTERN] bad block table pointer
> * @bbt_td: [REPLACEABLE] bad block table descriptor for flash
> * lookup.
> @@ -1119,6 +1121,8 @@ struct nand_chip {
>
> struct mutex lock;
> unsigned int suspended : 1;
> + int (*_suspend)(struct nand_chip *chip);
> + void (*_resume)(struct nand_chip *chip);
I thought we agreed on not prefixing new hooks with _ ?
>
> uint8_t *oob_poi;
> struct nand_controller *controller;
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:21:23 +0800
Mason Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
> Patch nand_suspend() & nand_resume() for manufacturer specific
> suspend/resume operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <[email protected]>
> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 11 ++++++++---
> include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> index 769be81..b44e460 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> @@ -4327,7 +4327,9 @@ static int nand_suspend(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
>
> mutex_lock(&chip->lock);
> - chip->suspended = 1;
> + if (chip->_suspend)
> + if (!chip->_suspend(chip))
> + chip->suspended = 1;
> mutex_unlock(&chip->lock);
>
> return 0;
> @@ -4342,11 +4344,14 @@ static void nand_resume(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
>
> mutex_lock(&chip->lock);
> - if (chip->suspended)
> + if (chip->suspended) {
> + if (chip->_resume)
> + chip->_resume(chip);
> chip->suspended = 0;
> - else
> + } else {
> pr_err("%s called for a chip which is not in suspended state\n",
> __func__);
> + }
> mutex_unlock(&chip->lock);
> }
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> index bc2fa3c..c0055ed 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> @@ -1064,6 +1064,8 @@ struct nand_legacy {
> * @lock: lock protecting the suspended field. Also used to
> * serialize accesses to the NAND device.
> * @suspended: set to 1 when the device is suspended, 0 when it's not.
> + * @_suspend: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND device suspend operation
> + * @_resume: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND device resume operation
Given you added 4 more methods in this series, I think now would be a
good time to introduce a nand_chip_ops struct grouping all ops together.
> * @bbt: [INTERN] bad block table pointer
> * @bbt_td: [REPLACEABLE] bad block table descriptor for flash
> * lookup.
> @@ -1119,6 +1121,8 @@ struct nand_chip {
>
> struct mutex lock;
> unsigned int suspended : 1;
> + int (*_suspend)(struct nand_chip *chip);
> + void (*_resume)(struct nand_chip *chip);
>
> uint8_t *oob_poi;
> struct nand_controller *controller;
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:39:30 +0100
Boris Brezillon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:21:23 +0800
> Mason Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Patch nand_suspend() & nand_resume() for manufacturer specific
> > suspend/resume operation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <[email protected]>
> > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 11 ++++++++---
> > include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h | 4 ++++
> > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > index 769be81..b44e460 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > @@ -4327,7 +4327,9 @@ static int nand_suspend(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> > struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
> >
> > mutex_lock(&chip->lock);
> > - chip->suspended = 1;
> > + if (chip->_suspend)
> > + if (!chip->_suspend(chip))
> > + chip->suspended = 1;
Shouldn't you propagate the error to the caller if chip->_suspend()
fails?
Hi Boris,
> > Add nand_lock() & nand_unlock() for manufacturer specific lock &
unlock
> > operation while the device supports Block Portection function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <[email protected]>
> > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
>
> Reported-by on something that's not a fix doesn't make sense. I know
> the 0day bot asked you to add this tag, but that should only be done if
> you submit a separate patch, ideally with a Fixes tag. If the offending
> patch has not been merged yet, you should just fix the commit and ignore
> the Reported-by tag (you can mention who reported the problem in the
> changelog though).
>
okay, understand it.
Thanks a lot for your explanation.
Mason
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be
reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail
(and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive
this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as
well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be
informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is
prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws.
Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================
============================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail (and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================
Hi Boris,
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> > index bc2fa3c..c0055ed 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> > @@ -1064,6 +1064,8 @@ struct nand_legacy {
> > * @lock: lock protecting the suspended field. Also used to
> > * serialize accesses to the NAND device.
> > * @suspended: set to 1 when the device is suspended, 0 when
it's not.
> > + * @_suspend: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND device suspend
operation
> > + * @_resume: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND device resume operation
> > * @bbt: [INTERN] bad block table pointer
> > * @bbt_td: [REPLACEABLE] bad block table descriptor for flash
> > * lookup.
> > @@ -1119,6 +1121,8 @@ struct nand_chip {
> >
> > struct mutex lock;
> > unsigned int suspended : 1;
> > + int (*_suspend)(struct nand_chip *chip);
> > + void (*_resume)(struct nand_chip *chip);
>
> I thought we agreed on not prefixing new hooks with _ ?
For [PATCH v2] series, you mentioned to drop the _ prefix
of _lock/_unlock only and we finally patched to lock_area/unlock_area.
thanks for your time & review.
Mason
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be
reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail
(and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive
this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as
well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be
informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is
prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws.
Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================
============================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail (and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================
Hi Boris,
> > > ---
> > > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 11 ++++++++---
> > > include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h | 4 ++++
> > > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > > index 769be81..b44e460 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > > @@ -4327,7 +4327,9 @@ static int nand_suspend(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> > > struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
> > >
> > > mutex_lock(&chip->lock);
> > > - chip->suspended = 1;
> > > + if (chip->_suspend)
> > > + if (!chip->_suspend(chip))
> > > + chip->suspended = 1;
>
> Shouldn't you propagate the error to the caller if chip->_suspend()
> fails?
Currently, chip->suspend() just do sending command to nand chip and
I think caller could check chip->suspend = 1 or 0 to know the status
of nand chip.
thanks & best regards,
Mason
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be
reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail
(and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive
this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as
well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be
informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is
prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws.
Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================
============================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail (and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================
Hi Mason, Boris,
[email protected] wrote on Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:40:04 +0800:
> Hi Boris,
>
> > > Add nand_lock() & nand_unlock() for manufacturer specific lock &
> unlock
> > > operation while the device supports Block Portection function.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <[email protected]>
> > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
> >
> > Reported-by on something that's not a fix doesn't make sense. I know
> > the 0day bot asked you to add this tag, but that should only be done if
> > you submit a separate patch, ideally with a Fixes tag. If the offending
> > patch has not been merged yet, you should just fix the commit and ignore
> > the Reported-by tag (you can mention who reported the problem in the
> > changelog though).
Yesterday when applying all the NAND patches my personal IP address got
flagged as spam by mistake (~500 mails in ~10s) so I could not answer
manually as I wished.
Indeed, this Reported-by tag was not needed and I dropped it manually
when applying. This tag is meant to show an error that was existing
*before* your series and that you are fixing with your series. This is
not something you should add when a robot tells you something is wrong
in your series.
Also, I rewrote several paragraphs and I prefixed two of them with "mtd:
rawnand: macronix:".
Thanks,
Miquèl
Hi Mason,
[email protected] wrote on Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:40:52 +0800:
> Hi Boris,
>
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> > > index bc2fa3c..c0055ed 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> > > @@ -1064,6 +1064,8 @@ struct nand_legacy {
> > > * @lock: lock protecting the suspended field. Also used to
> > > * serialize accesses to the NAND device.
> > > * @suspended: set to 1 when the device is suspended, 0 when
> it's not.
> > > + * @_suspend: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND device suspend
> operation
> > > + * @_resume: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND device resume operation
> > > * @bbt: [INTERN] bad block table pointer
> > > * @bbt_td: [REPLACEABLE] bad block table descriptor for flash
> > > * lookup.
> > > @@ -1119,6 +1121,8 @@ struct nand_chip {
> > >
> > > struct mutex lock;
> > > unsigned int suspended : 1;
> > > + int (*_suspend)(struct nand_chip *chip);
> > > + void (*_resume)(struct nand_chip *chip);
> >
> > I thought we agreed on not prefixing new hooks with _ ?
>
> For [PATCH v2] series, you mentioned to drop the _ prefix
> of _lock/_unlock only and we finally patched to lock_area/unlock_area.
>
I missed this _, this is not something we want to add.
Also, when applying your patches I had several issues because they
where not base on the last -rc1.
Finally, I think I forgot a line when patching manually so it produces
a warning now.
I am dropping patch 3 and 4, I keep patch 1 and 2 which seem fine.
Please send a rebased and edited v4 for these, don't forget to drop the
kbuildtest robot tag and please also follow these slightly edited
commit logs:
2/4
mtd: rawnand: Add support for manufacturer specific suspend/resume operation
Patch nand_suspend() & nand_resume() to let manufacturers overwrite
suspend/resume operations.
3/4
mtd: rawnand: macronix: Add support for deep power down mode
Macronix AD series support deep power down mode for a minimum
power consumption state.
Overlaod nand_suspend() & nand_resume() in Macronix specific code to
support deep power down mode.
Thanks,
Miquèl
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:43:04 +0100
Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Mason,
>
> [email protected] wrote on Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:40:52 +0800:
>
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> > > > index bc2fa3c..c0055ed 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> > > > @@ -1064,6 +1064,8 @@ struct nand_legacy {
> > > > * @lock: lock protecting the suspended field. Also used to
> > > > * serialize accesses to the NAND device.
> > > > * @suspended: set to 1 when the device is suspended, 0 when
> > it's not.
> > > > + * @_suspend: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND device suspend
> > operation
> > > > + * @_resume: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND device resume operation
> > > > * @bbt: [INTERN] bad block table pointer
> > > > * @bbt_td: [REPLACEABLE] bad block table descriptor for flash
> > > > * lookup.
> > > > @@ -1119,6 +1121,8 @@ struct nand_chip {
> > > >
> > > > struct mutex lock;
> > > > unsigned int suspended : 1;
> > > > + int (*_suspend)(struct nand_chip *chip);
> > > > + void (*_resume)(struct nand_chip *chip);
> > >
> > > I thought we agreed on not prefixing new hooks with _ ?
> >
> > For [PATCH v2] series, you mentioned to drop the _ prefix
> > of _lock/_unlock only and we finally patched to lock_area/unlock_area.
> >
>
> I missed this _, this is not something we want to add.
>
> Also, when applying your patches I had several issues because they
> where not base on the last -rc1.
>
> Finally, I think I forgot a line when patching manually so it produces
> a warning now.
>
> I am dropping patch 3 and 4, I keep patch 1 and 2 which seem fine.
>
> Please send a rebased and edited v4 for these, don't forget to drop the
> kbuildtest robot tag and please also follow these slightly edited
> commit logs:
>
> 2/4
>
> mtd: rawnand: Add support for manufacturer specific suspend/resume operation
>
> Patch nand_suspend() & nand_resume() to let manufacturers overwrite
> suspend/resume operations.
>
> 3/4
>
> mtd: rawnand: macronix: Add support for deep power down mode
>
> Macronix AD series support deep power down mode for a minimum
> power consumption state.
>
> Overlaod nand_suspend() & nand_resume() in Macronix specific code to
> support deep power down mode.
And don't forget to propagate the ->suspend() error code to the upper
layer.
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 14:13:57 +0800
[email protected] wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 11 ++++++++---
> > > > include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h | 4 ++++
> > > > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > > > index 769be81..b44e460 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > > > @@ -4327,7 +4327,9 @@ static int nand_suspend(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> > > > struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
> > > >
> > > > mutex_lock(&chip->lock);
> > > > - chip->suspended = 1;
> > > > + if (chip->_suspend)
> > > > + if (!chip->_suspend(chip))
> > > > + chip->suspended = 1;
> >
> > Shouldn't you propagate the error to the caller if chip->_suspend()
> > fails?
>
> Currently, chip->suspend() just do sending command to nand chip and
> I think caller could check chip->suspend = 1 or 0 to know the status
> of nand chip.
No, it can't. The caller (AKA the MTD layer) has no idea about this
chip->suspend field, actually it doesn't even know about the nand_chip
struct. The mtd->_suspend() hook is here to abstract HW details, so
it's the raw NAND framework responsibility to propagate the error code
returned by chip->suspend().
Hi Miquel,
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> > > > index bc2fa3c..c0055ed 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> > > > @@ -1064,6 +1064,8 @@ struct nand_legacy {
> > > > * @lock: lock protecting the suspended field. Also used to
> > > > * serialize accesses to the NAND device.
> > > > * @suspended: set to 1 when the device is suspended, 0 when
> > it's not.
> > > > + * @_suspend: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND device suspend
> > operation
> > > > + * @_resume: [REPLACEABLE] specific NAND device resume
operation
> > > > * @bbt: [INTERN] bad block table pointer
> > > > * @bbt_td: [REPLACEABLE] bad block table descriptor for
flash
> > > > * lookup.
> > > > @@ -1119,6 +1121,8 @@ struct nand_chip {
> > > >
> > > > struct mutex lock;
> > > > unsigned int suspended : 1;
> > > > + int (*_suspend)(struct nand_chip *chip);
> > > > + void (*_resume)(struct nand_chip *chip);
> > >
> > > I thought we agreed on not prefixing new hooks with _ ?
> >
> > For [PATCH v2] series, you mentioned to drop the _ prefix
> > of _lock/_unlock only and we finally patched to lock_area/unlock_area.
> >
>
> I missed this _, this is not something we want to add.
>
> Also, when applying your patches I had several issues because they
> where not base on the last -rc1.
>
> Finally, I think I forgot a line when patching manually so it produces
> a warning now.
>
> I am dropping patch 3 and 4, I keep patch 1 and 2 which seem fine.
>
> Please send a rebased and edited v4 for these, don't forget to drop the
> kbuildtest robot tag and please also follow these slightly edited
> commit logs:
>
> 2/4
>
> mtd: rawnand: Add support for manufacturer specific suspend/resume
operation
>
> Patch nand_suspend() & nand_resume() to let manufacturers overwrite
> suspend/resume operations.
>
> 3/4
>
> mtd: rawnand: macronix: Add support for deep power down mode
>
> Macronix AD series support deep power down mode for a minimum
> power consumption state.
>
> Overlaod nand_suspend() & nand_resume() in Macronix specific code to
> support deep power down mode.
okay, will resend [PATCH v4 xx/2] for suspend/resume operation with these
commit logs.
>
> Thanks,
> Miqu?l
thanks for your review & comments.
Mason
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be
reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail
(and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive
this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as
well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be
informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is
prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws.
Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================
============================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail (and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================
Hi Boris,
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 11 ++++++++---
> > > > > include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h | 4 ++++
> > > > > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > > > > index 769be81..b44e460 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > > > > @@ -4327,7 +4327,9 @@ static int nand_suspend(struct mtd_info
*mtd)
> > > > > struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
> > > > >
> > > > > mutex_lock(&chip->lock);
> > > > > - chip->suspended = 1;
> > > > > + if (chip->_suspend)
> > > > > + if (!chip->_suspend(chip))
> > > > > + chip->suspended = 1;
> > >
> > > Shouldn't you propagate the error to the caller if chip->_suspend()
> > > fails?
> >
> > Currently, chip->suspend() just do sending command to nand chip and
> > I think caller could check chip->suspend = 1 or 0 to know the status
> > of nand chip.
>
> No, it can't. The caller (AKA the MTD layer) has no idea about this
> chip->suspend field, actually it doesn't even know about the nand_chip
> struct. The mtd->_suspend() hook is here to abstract HW details, so
> it's the raw NAND framework responsibility to propagate the error code
> returned by chip->suspend().
Got it, thanks!
best regards,
Mason
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be
reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail
(and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive
this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as
well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be
informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is
prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws.
Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================
============================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail (and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================