2022-10-12 16:00:36

by Mauro Lima

Subject: [PATCH] spi: intel: Fix the offset to get the 64K erase opcode

According to documentation, the 64K erase opcode is located in VSCC
range [16:23] instead of [8:15].
Use the proper value to shift the mask over the correct range.

Signed-off-by: Mauro Lima <[email protected]>
---
drivers/spi/spi-intel.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-intel.c b/drivers/spi/spi-intel.c
index 55f4ee2db002..605acb1bf4b0 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-intel.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-intel.c
@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@
#define ERASE_OPCODE_SHIFT 8
#define ERASE_OPCODE_MASK (0xff << ERASE_OPCODE_SHIFT)
#define ERASE_64K_OPCODE_SHIFT 16
-#define ERASE_64K_OPCODE_MASK (0xff << ERASE_OPCODE_SHIFT)
+#define ERASE_64K_OPCODE_MASK (0xff << ERASE_64K_OPCODE_SHIFT)

/* Flash descriptor fields */
#define FLVALSIG_MAGIC 0x0ff0a55a
--
2.34.3

2022-10-13 08:56:33

by Mika Westerberg

Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: intel: Fix the offset to get the 64K erase opcode

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 12:21:35PM -0300, Mauro Lima wrote:
> According to documentation, the 64K erase opcode is located in VSCC
> range [16:23] instead of [8:15].
> Use the proper value to shift the mask over the correct range.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Lima <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <[email protected]>

2022-10-13 13:52:30

by Mark Brown

Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: intel: Fix the offset to get the 64K erase opcode

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 12:21:35 -0300, Mauro Lima wrote:
> According to documentation, the 64K erase opcode is located in VSCC
> range [16:23] instead of [8:15].
> Use the proper value to shift the mask over the correct range.
>
>

Applied to

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] spi: intel: Fix the offset to get the 64K erase opcode
commit: 6a43cd02ddbc597dc9a1f82c1e433f871a2f6f06

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark