In case spi_nor_match_name() returned NULL, the auto detection was
issued twice. There's no reason to try to detect the same chip twice,
do the auto detection only once.
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Michael Walle <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 13 ++++++++-----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
index b9cc8bbf1f62..b55d922d46dd 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
@@ -2896,13 +2896,14 @@ static const struct flash_info *spi_nor_get_flash_info(struct spi_nor *nor,
{
const struct flash_info *info = NULL;
- if (name)
+ if (name) {
info = spi_nor_match_name(nor, name);
+ if (IS_ERR(info))
+ return info;
+ }
/* Try to auto-detect if chip name wasn't specified or not found */
if (!info)
- info = spi_nor_read_id(nor);
- if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(info))
- return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
+ return spi_nor_read_id(nor);
/*
* If caller has specified name of flash model that can normally be
@@ -2994,7 +2995,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char *name,
return -ENOMEM;
info = spi_nor_get_flash_info(nor, name);
- if (IS_ERR(info))
+ if (!info)
+ return -ENOENT;
+ else if (IS_ERR(info))
return PTR_ERR(info);
nor->info = info;
--
2.25.1
On 4/21/22 16:16, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> On 21/04/22 07:18AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> Hi, Pratyush,
>>
>> I forgot to remove few checks, would you please remove them when applying?
>> See below.
>>
>> On 4/20/22 13:34, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>> In case spi_nor_match_name() returned NULL, the auto detection was
>>> issued twice. There's no reason to try to detect the same chip twice,
>>> do the auto detection only once.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Michael Walle <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 13 ++++++++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>>> index b9cc8bbf1f62..b55d922d46dd 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>>> @@ -2896,13 +2896,14 @@ static const struct flash_info *spi_nor_get_flash_info(struct spi_nor *nor,
>>> {
>>> const struct flash_info *info = NULL;
>>>
>>> - if (name)
>>> + if (name) {
>>> info = spi_nor_match_name(nor, name);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(info))
>>> + return info;
>>
>> As Michael suggested spi_nor_match_name() returns NULL or valid entry, so this
>> check is not necessary, let's remove them.
>>
>>> + }
>>> /* Try to auto-detect if chip name wasn't specified or not found */
>>> if (!info)
>>> - info = spi_nor_read_id(nor);
>>> - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(info))
>>> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
>>> + return spi_nor_read_id(nor);
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * If caller has specified name of flash model that can normally be
>>> @@ -2994,7 +2995,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char *name,
>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>>
>>> info = spi_nor_get_flash_info(nor, name);
>>> - if (IS_ERR(info))
>>> + if (!info)
>>> + return -ENOENT;
>>
>> also according to Michael, this change is not needed as spi_nor_get_flash_info() can't
>> return NULL. Here we can keep the code as it was. Let me know if you want me to respin.
>
> TBH I don't think a NULL check here hurts much since the behaviour might
> change later, and error paths don't get exercised as often. But I have
I agree, but at the same time we're introducing checks gratuitously. Since
Michael cared about it, it's fine that we removed it. I don't care too much
about it.
> made both changes when applying. You can double-check at [0] if you
> want.>
> [0] https://github.com/prati0100/linux-0day/commit/67d913746833ee54bf4c661040f3ef13657dffd8
looks good.
btw: I think this patch
https://github.com/prati0100/linux-0day/commit/b45bbff85d49529f8daff83c341a292f6c6492ca
may introduce a regression on some atmel chips. Let me try it please.
>
>>
>>> + else if (IS_ERR(info))
>>> return PTR_ERR(info);
>>>
>>> nor->info = info;
>>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Pratyush Yadav
> Texas Instruments Inc.
On 21/04/22 07:18AM, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi, Pratyush,
>
> I forgot to remove few checks, would you please remove them when applying?
> See below.
>
> On 4/20/22 13:34, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> > In case spi_nor_match_name() returned NULL, the auto detection was
> > issued twice. There's no reason to try to detect the same chip twice,
> > do the auto detection only once.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Michael Walle <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> > index b9cc8bbf1f62..b55d922d46dd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> > @@ -2896,13 +2896,14 @@ static const struct flash_info *spi_nor_get_flash_info(struct spi_nor *nor,
> > {
> > const struct flash_info *info = NULL;
> >
> > - if (name)
> > + if (name) {
> > info = spi_nor_match_name(nor, name);
> > + if (IS_ERR(info))
> > + return info;
>
> As Michael suggested spi_nor_match_name() returns NULL or valid entry, so this
> check is not necessary, let's remove them.
>
> > + }
> > /* Try to auto-detect if chip name wasn't specified or not found */
> > if (!info)
> > - info = spi_nor_read_id(nor);
> > - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(info))
> > - return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> > + return spi_nor_read_id(nor);
> >
> > /*
> > * If caller has specified name of flash model that can normally be
> > @@ -2994,7 +2995,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char *name,
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > info = spi_nor_get_flash_info(nor, name);
> > - if (IS_ERR(info))
> > + if (!info)
> > + return -ENOENT;
>
> also according to Michael, this change is not needed as spi_nor_get_flash_info() can't
> return NULL. Here we can keep the code as it was. Let me know if you want me to respin.
TBH I don't think a NULL check here hurts much since the behaviour might
change later, and error paths don't get exercised as often. But I have
made both changes when applying. You can double-check at [0] if you
want.
[0] https://github.com/prati0100/linux-0day/commit/67d913746833ee54bf4c661040f3ef13657dffd8
>
> > + else if (IS_ERR(info))
> > return PTR_ERR(info);
> >
> > nor->info = info;
>
--
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
Texas Instruments Inc.
Hi, Pratyush,
I forgot to remove few checks, would you please remove them when applying?
See below.
On 4/20/22 13:34, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> In case spi_nor_match_name() returned NULL, the auto detection was
> issued twice. There's no reason to try to detect the same chip twice,
> do the auto detection only once.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Michael Walle <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> index b9cc8bbf1f62..b55d922d46dd 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> @@ -2896,13 +2896,14 @@ static const struct flash_info *spi_nor_get_flash_info(struct spi_nor *nor,
> {
> const struct flash_info *info = NULL;
>
> - if (name)
> + if (name) {
> info = spi_nor_match_name(nor, name);
> + if (IS_ERR(info))
> + return info;
As Michael suggested spi_nor_match_name() returns NULL or valid entry, so this
check is not necessary, let's remove them.
> + }
> /* Try to auto-detect if chip name wasn't specified or not found */
> if (!info)
> - info = spi_nor_read_id(nor);
> - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(info))
> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> + return spi_nor_read_id(nor);
>
> /*
> * If caller has specified name of flash model that can normally be
> @@ -2994,7 +2995,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char *name,
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> info = spi_nor_get_flash_info(nor, name);
> - if (IS_ERR(info))
> + if (!info)
> + return -ENOENT;
also according to Michael, this change is not needed as spi_nor_get_flash_info() can't
return NULL. Here we can keep the code as it was. Let me know if you want me to respin.
> + else if (IS_ERR(info))
> return PTR_ERR(info);
>
> nor->info = info;
On 21/04/22 01:41PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On 4/21/22 16:16, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >
> > On 21/04/22 07:18AM, [email protected] wrote:
> >> Hi, Pratyush,
> >>
> >> I forgot to remove few checks, would you please remove them when applying?
> >> See below.
> >>
> >> On 4/20/22 13:34, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> >>> In case spi_nor_match_name() returned NULL, the auto detection was
> >>> issued twice. There's no reason to try to detect the same chip twice,
> >>> do the auto detection only once.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Michael Walle <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> >>> index b9cc8bbf1f62..b55d922d46dd 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> >>> @@ -2896,13 +2896,14 @@ static const struct flash_info *spi_nor_get_flash_info(struct spi_nor *nor,
> >>> {
> >>> const struct flash_info *info = NULL;
> >>>
> >>> - if (name)
> >>> + if (name) {
> >>> info = spi_nor_match_name(nor, name);
> >>> + if (IS_ERR(info))
> >>> + return info;
> >>
> >> As Michael suggested spi_nor_match_name() returns NULL or valid entry, so this
> >> check is not necessary, let's remove them.
> >>
> >>> + }
> >>> /* Try to auto-detect if chip name wasn't specified or not found */
> >>> if (!info)
> >>> - info = spi_nor_read_id(nor);
> >>> - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(info))
> >>> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> >>> + return spi_nor_read_id(nor);
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>> * If caller has specified name of flash model that can normally be
> >>> @@ -2994,7 +2995,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char *name,
> >>> return -ENOMEM;
> >>>
> >>> info = spi_nor_get_flash_info(nor, name);
> >>> - if (IS_ERR(info))
> >>> + if (!info)
> >>> + return -ENOENT;
> >>
> >> also according to Michael, this change is not needed as spi_nor_get_flash_info() can't
> >> return NULL. Here we can keep the code as it was. Let me know if you want me to respin.
> >
> > TBH I don't think a NULL check here hurts much since the behaviour might
> > change later, and error paths don't get exercised as often. But I have
>
> I agree, but at the same time we're introducing checks gratuitously. Since
> Michael cared about it, it's fine that we removed it. I don't care too much
> about it.
>
> > made both changes when applying. You can double-check at [0] if you
> > want.>
> > [0] https://github.com/prati0100/linux-0day/commit/67d913746833ee54bf4c661040f3ef13657dffd8
>
> looks good.
>
> btw: I think this patch
> https://github.com/prati0100/linux-0day/commit/b45bbff85d49529f8daff83c341a292f6c6492ca
> may introduce a regression on some atmel chips. Let me try it please.
Did you get a chance to try this out? If it works fine, I would like to
apply it.
> >
> >>
> >>> + else if (IS_ERR(info))
> >>> return PTR_ERR(info);
> >>>
> >>> nor->info = info;
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Pratyush Yadav
> > Texas Instruments Inc.
>
--
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
Texas Instruments Inc.
On 4/27/22 08:20, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> On 21/04/22 01:41PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On 4/21/22 16:16, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>
>>> On 21/04/22 07:18AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Hi, Pratyush,
>>>>
>>>> I forgot to remove few checks, would you please remove them when applying?
>>>> See below.
>>>>
>>>> On 4/20/22 13:34, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>>>> In case spi_nor_match_name() returned NULL, the auto detection was
>>>>> issued twice. There's no reason to try to detect the same chip twice,
>>>>> do the auto detection only once.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Michael Walle <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 13 ++++++++-----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>>>>> index b9cc8bbf1f62..b55d922d46dd 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>>>>> @@ -2896,13 +2896,14 @@ static const struct flash_info *spi_nor_get_flash_info(struct spi_nor *nor,
>>>>> {
>>>>> const struct flash_info *info = NULL;
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (name)
>>>>> + if (name) {
>>>>> info = spi_nor_match_name(nor, name);
>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(info))
>>>>> + return info;
>>>>
>>>> As Michael suggested spi_nor_match_name() returns NULL or valid entry, so this
>>>> check is not necessary, let's remove them.
>>>>
>>>>> + }
>>>>> /* Try to auto-detect if chip name wasn't specified or not found */
>>>>> if (!info)
>>>>> - info = spi_nor_read_id(nor);
>>>>> - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(info))
>>>>> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
>>>>> + return spi_nor_read_id(nor);
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * If caller has specified name of flash model that can normally be
>>>>> @@ -2994,7 +2995,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char *name,
>>>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>
>>>>> info = spi_nor_get_flash_info(nor, name);
>>>>> - if (IS_ERR(info))
>>>>> + if (!info)
>>>>> + return -ENOENT;
>>>>
>>>> also according to Michael, this change is not needed as spi_nor_get_flash_info() can't
>>>> return NULL. Here we can keep the code as it was. Let me know if you want me to respin.
>>>
>>> TBH I don't think a NULL check here hurts much since the behaviour might
>>> change later, and error paths don't get exercised as often. But I have
>>
>> I agree, but at the same time we're introducing checks gratuitously. Since
>> Michael cared about it, it's fine that we removed it. I don't care too much
>> about it.
>>
>>> made both changes when applying. You can double-check at [0] if you
>>> want.>
>>> [0] https://github.com/prati0100/linux-0day/commit/67d913746833ee54bf4c661040f3ef13657dffd8
>>
>> looks good.
>>
>> btw: I think this patch
>> https://github.com/prati0100/linux-0day/commit/b45bbff85d49529f8daff83c341a292f6c6492ca
>> may introduce a regression on some atmel chips. Let me try it please.
>
> Did you get a chance to try this out? If it works fine, I would like to
> apply it.
I tried it on a at25df321a. When calling unlock, everything seems fine. However
I haven't tried a lock/unlock cycle as lock is not supported and I couldn't
allocate more time. Even if there will be regressions we can handle them
afterwards, so let's apply it.
Cheers,
ta