From: "Wesley W. Terpstra" <[email protected]>
This is used of the HiFive Unleashed development board.
Signed-off-by: Wesley W. Terpstra <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
index d9c368c44194..e9a3557a3c23 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
@@ -1072,6 +1072,9 @@ static const struct flash_info spi_nor_ids[] = {
SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
{ "is25wp128", INFO(0x9d7018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256,
SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
+ { "is25wp256d", INFO(0x9d7019, 0, 32 * 1024, 1024,
+ SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ | SPI_NOR_4B_OPCODES)
+ },
/* Macronix */
{ "mx25l512e", INFO(0xc22010, 0, 64 * 1024, 1, SECT_4K) },
@@ -1515,6 +1518,45 @@ static int macronix_quad_enable(struct spi_nor *nor)
return 0;
}
+/**
+ * issi_unlock() - clear BP[0123] write-protection.
+ * @nor: pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'
+ *
+ * Bits [2345] of the Status Register are BP[0123].
+ * ISSI chips use a different block protection scheme than other chips.
+ * Just disable the write-protect unilaterally.
+ *
+ * Return: 0 on success, -errno otherwise.
+ */
+static int issi_unlock(struct spi_nor *nor)
+{
+ int ret, val;
+ u8 mask = SR_BP0 | SR_BP1 | SR_BP2 | SR_BP3;
+
+ val = read_sr(nor);
+ if (val < 0)
+ return val;
+ if (!(val & mask))
+ return 0;
+
+ write_enable(nor);
+
+ write_sr(nor, val & ~mask);
+
+ ret = spi_nor_wait_till_ready(nor);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ ret = read_sr(nor);
+ if (ret > 0 && !(ret & mask)) {
+ dev_info(nor->dev, "ISSI Block Protection Bits cleared\n");
+ return 0;
+ } else {
+ dev_err(nor->dev, "ISSI Block Protection Bits not cleared\n");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+}
+
/*
* Write status Register and configuration register with 2 bytes
* The first byte will be written to the status register, while the
@@ -2747,6 +2789,9 @@ static int spi_nor_init(struct spi_nor *nor)
spi_nor_wait_till_ready(nor);
}
+ if (JEDEC_MFR(nor->info) == SNOR_MFR_ISSI)
+ issi_unlock(nor);
+
if (nor->quad_enable) {
err = nor->quad_enable(nor);
if (err) {
@@ -2926,7 +2971,7 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char *name,
if (ret)
return ret;
- if (nor->addr_width) {
+ if (nor->addr_width && JEDEC_MFR(info) != SNOR_MFR_ISSI) {
/* already configured from SFDP */
} else if (info->addr_width) {
nor->addr_width = info->addr_width;
diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h b/include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h
index e60da0d34cc1..da422a37d383 100644
--- a/include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h
+++ b/include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
#define SNOR_MFR_ATMEL CFI_MFR_ATMEL
#define SNOR_MFR_GIGADEVICE 0xc8
#define SNOR_MFR_INTEL CFI_MFR_INTEL
+#define SNOR_MFR_ISSI 0x9d
#define SNOR_MFR_MICRON CFI_MFR_ST /* ST Micro <--> Micron */
#define SNOR_MFR_MACRONIX CFI_MFR_MACRONIX
#define SNOR_MFR_SPANSION CFI_MFR_AMD
@@ -121,6 +122,7 @@
#define SR_BP0 BIT(2) /* Block protect 0 */
#define SR_BP1 BIT(3) /* Block protect 1 */
#define SR_BP2 BIT(4) /* Block protect 2 */
+#define SR_BP3 BIT(5) /* Block protect 3 (on ISSI chips) */
#define SR_TB BIT(5) /* Top/Bottom protect */
#define SR_SRWD BIT(7) /* SR write protect */
/* Spansion/Cypress specific status bits */
--
2.16.4
On 08/04/2018 03:49 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> From: "Wesley W. Terpstra" <[email protected]>
>
> This is used of the HiFive Unleashed development board.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wesley W. Terpstra <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> index d9c368c44194..e9a3557a3c23 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> @@ -1072,6 +1072,9 @@ static const struct flash_info spi_nor_ids[] = {
> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
> { "is25wp128", INFO(0x9d7018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256,
> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
> + { "is25wp256d", INFO(0x9d7019, 0, 32 * 1024, 1024,
Is there a reason for the trailing 'd' in is25wp256d ? I'd drop it.
> + SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ | SPI_NOR_4B_OPCODES)
> + },
>
> /* Macronix */
> { "mx25l512e", INFO(0xc22010, 0, 64 * 1024, 1, SECT_4K) },
> @@ -1515,6 +1518,45 @@ static int macronix_quad_enable(struct spi_nor *nor)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/**
> + * issi_unlock() - clear BP[0123] write-protection.
> + * @nor: pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'
> + *
> + * Bits [2345] of the Status Register are BP[0123].
> + * ISSI chips use a different block protection scheme than other chips.
> + * Just disable the write-protect unilaterally.
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on success, -errno otherwise.
> + */
> +static int issi_unlock(struct spi_nor *nor)
> +{
> + int ret, val;
> + u8 mask = SR_BP0 | SR_BP1 | SR_BP2 | SR_BP3;
> +
> + val = read_sr(nor);
> + if (val < 0)
> + return val;
> + if (!(val & mask))
> + return 0;
> +
> + write_enable(nor);
> +
> + write_sr(nor, val & ~mask);
> +
> + ret = spi_nor_wait_till_ready(nor);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = read_sr(nor);
> + if (ret > 0 && !(ret & mask)) {
> + dev_info(nor->dev, "ISSI Block Protection Bits cleared\n");
> + return 0;
Is the dev_info() really needed ?
> + } else {
> + dev_err(nor->dev, "ISSI Block Protection Bits not cleared\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +}
[...]
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
On Sat, 04 Aug 2018 02:27:54 PDT (-0700), [email protected] wrote:
> On 08/04/2018 03:49 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> From: "Wesley W. Terpstra" <[email protected]>
>>
>> This is used of the HiFive Unleashed development board.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wesley W. Terpstra <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h | 2 ++
>> 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>> index d9c368c44194..e9a3557a3c23 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>> @@ -1072,6 +1072,9 @@ static const struct flash_info spi_nor_ids[] = {
>> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
>> { "is25wp128", INFO(0x9d7018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256,
>> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
>> + { "is25wp256d", INFO(0x9d7019, 0, 32 * 1024, 1024,
>
> Is there a reason for the trailing 'd' in is25wp256d ? I'd drop it.
I'm honestly not sure. There are data sheets for both of them, but I don't see
much of a difference
http://www.issi.com/WW/pdf/IS25LP(WP)256D.pdf
http://www.issi.com/WW/pdf/25LP-WP256.pdf
Following the pattern, I'd expect to see
{ "is25wp256", INFO(0x9d7019, 0, 64 * 1024, 512,
SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
versus
{ "is25wp256d", INFO(0x9d7019, 0, 32 * 1024, 1024,
SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ | SPI_NOR_4B_OPCODES)
},
So in other words: the d less sections that are larger, and also has the 4B
opcodes flag set. From the documentation in looks like the non-d version
supports 3 and 4 byte opcodes, so I guess it's just a different physical
layout?
In the data sheet for both I see
"Pages can be erased in groups of 4Kbyte sectors, 32Kbyte blocks, 64Kbyte
blocks, and/or the entire chip"
which indicates to me that maybe we've just selected the larger section size? If
so then I'll change it to the first one in the new patch.
>> + SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ | SPI_NOR_4B_OPCODES)
>> + },
>>
>> /* Macronix */
>> { "mx25l512e", INFO(0xc22010, 0, 64 * 1024, 1, SECT_4K) },
>> @@ -1515,6 +1518,45 @@ static int macronix_quad_enable(struct spi_nor *nor)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +/**
>> + * issi_unlock() - clear BP[0123] write-protection.
>> + * @nor: pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'
>> + *
>> + * Bits [2345] of the Status Register are BP[0123].
>> + * ISSI chips use a different block protection scheme than other chips.
>> + * Just disable the write-protect unilaterally.
>> + *
>> + * Return: 0 on success, -errno otherwise.
>> + */
>> +static int issi_unlock(struct spi_nor *nor)
>> +{
>> + int ret, val;
>> + u8 mask = SR_BP0 | SR_BP1 | SR_BP2 | SR_BP3;
>> +
>> + val = read_sr(nor);
>> + if (val < 0)
>> + return val;
>> + if (!(val & mask))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + write_enable(nor);
>> +
>> + write_sr(nor, val & ~mask);
>> +
>> + ret = spi_nor_wait_till_ready(nor);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + ret = read_sr(nor);
>> + if (ret > 0 && !(ret & mask)) {
>> + dev_info(nor->dev, "ISSI Block Protection Bits cleared\n");
>> + return 0;
>
> Is the dev_info() really needed ?
Nope. I'll spin a v2 pending the above discussion.
>> + } else {
>> + dev_err(nor->dev, "ISSI Block Protection Bits not cleared\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +}
>
> [...]
Thanks!
On 08/06/2018 10:58 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2018 02:27:54 PDT (-0700), [email protected] wrote:
>> On 08/04/2018 03:49 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>> From: "Wesley W. Terpstra" <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> This is used of the HiFive Unleashed development board.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wesley W. Terpstra <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c | 47
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>> include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h | 2 ++
>>> 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>>> b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>>> index d9c368c44194..e9a3557a3c23 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>>> @@ -1072,6 +1072,9 @@ static const struct flash_info spi_nor_ids[] = {
>>> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
>>> { "is25wp128", INFO(0x9d7018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256,
>>> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
>>> + { "is25wp256d", INFO(0x9d7019, 0, 32 * 1024, 1024,
>>
>> Is there a reason for the trailing 'd' in is25wp256d ? I'd drop it.
>
> I'm honestly not sure. There are data sheets for both of them, but I
> don't see much of a difference
>
> http://www.issi.com/WW/pdf/IS25LP(WP)256D.pdf
> http://www.issi.com/WW/pdf/25LP-WP256.pdf
>
> Following the pattern, I'd expect to see
>
> { "is25wp256", INFO(0x9d7019, 0, 64 * 1024, 512,
> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
>
> versus
>
> { "is25wp256d", INFO(0x9d7019, 0, 32 * 1024, 1024,
> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ |
> SPI_NOR_4B_OPCODES)
> },
They have the same ID ? Do we support the variant without the d already?
> So in other words: the d less sections that are larger, and also has the
> 4B opcodes flag set. From the documentation in looks like the non-d
> version supports 3 and 4 byte opcodes, so I guess it's just a different
> physical layout?
>
> In the data sheet for both I see
>
> "Pages can be erased in groups of 4Kbyte sectors, 32Kbyte blocks,
> 64Kbyte blocks, and/or the entire chip"
>
> which indicates to me that maybe we've just selected the larger section
> size? If so then I'll change it to the first one in the new patch.
>
>>> + SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ
>>> | SPI_NOR_4B_OPCODES)
>>> + },
>>>
>>> /* Macronix */
>>> { "mx25l512e", INFO(0xc22010, 0, 64 * 1024, 1, SECT_4K) },
>>> @@ -1515,6 +1518,45 @@ static int macronix_quad_enable(struct spi_nor
>>> *nor)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * issi_unlock() - clear BP[0123] write-protection.
>>> + * @nor: pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'
>>> + *
>>> + * Bits [2345] of the Status Register are BP[0123].
>>> + * ISSI chips use a different block protection scheme than other chips.
>>> + * Just disable the write-protect unilaterally.
>>> + *
>>> + * Return: 0 on success, -errno otherwise.
>>> + */
>>> +static int issi_unlock(struct spi_nor *nor)
>>> +{
>>> + int ret, val;
>>> + u8 mask = SR_BP0 | SR_BP1 | SR_BP2 | SR_BP3;
>>> +
>>> + val = read_sr(nor);
>>> + if (val < 0)
>>> + return val;
>>> + if (!(val & mask))
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + write_enable(nor);
>>> +
>>> + write_sr(nor, val & ~mask);
>>> +
>>> + ret = spi_nor_wait_till_ready(nor);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>> +
>>> + ret = read_sr(nor);
>>> + if (ret > 0 && !(ret & mask)) {
>>> + dev_info(nor->dev, "ISSI Block Protection Bits cleared\n");
>>> + return 0;
>>
>> Is the dev_info() really needed ?
>
> Nope. I'll spin a v2 pending the above discussion.
>
>>> + } else {
>>> + dev_err(nor->dev, "ISSI Block Protection Bits not cleared\n");
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>
>> [...]
>
> Thanks!
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 14:05:11 PDT (-0700), [email protected] wrote:
> On 08/06/2018 10:58 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2018 02:27:54 PDT (-0700), [email protected] wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2018 03:49 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>>> From: "Wesley W. Terpstra" <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> This is used of the HiFive Unleashed development board.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wesley W. Terpstra <[email protected]>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c | 47
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>> include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h | 2 ++
>>>> 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>>>> b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>>>> index d9c368c44194..e9a3557a3c23 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>>>> @@ -1072,6 +1072,9 @@ static const struct flash_info spi_nor_ids[] = {
>>>> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
>>>> { "is25wp128", INFO(0x9d7018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256,
>>>> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
>>>> + { "is25wp256d", INFO(0x9d7019, 0, 32 * 1024, 1024,
>>>
>>> Is there a reason for the trailing 'd' in is25wp256d ? I'd drop it.
>>
>> I'm honestly not sure. There are data sheets for both of them, but I
>> don't see much of a difference
>>
>> http://www.issi.com/WW/pdf/IS25LP(WP)256D.pdf
>> http://www.issi.com/WW/pdf/25LP-WP256.pdf
>>
>> Following the pattern, I'd expect to see
>>
>> { "is25wp256", INFO(0x9d7019, 0, 64 * 1024, 512,
>> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
>>
>> versus
>>
>> { "is25wp256d", INFO(0x9d7019, 0, 32 * 1024, 1024,
>> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ |
>> SPI_NOR_4B_OPCODES)
>> },
>
> They have the same ID ? Do we support the variant without the d already?
Sorry for being a bit vague there. There is no is25wp256 in the list already,
but if I follow the pattern from the other similar chips I get a different
value for is25wp256 than what was proposed in the patch for an is25wp256d.
From my understanding the different values are just because we picked a
different block size, which seems possible because the original version of this
patch was written before the other is25wp devices were added to the list.
What I'm proposing is adding an is25wp256 with the same block size as the other
similar entries in the list. Looking at the data sheets they appear to have
the same values for the "Read Product Identification" instruction.
The data sheets are shared with the is25lp256, which there is an entry for and
matches my expected ID and block sizes.
>> So in other words: the d less sections that are larger, and also has the
>> 4B opcodes flag set. From the documentation in looks like the non-d
>> version supports 3 and 4 byte opcodes, so I guess it's just a different
>> physical layout?
>>
>> In the data sheet for both I see
>>
>> "Pages can be erased in groups of 4Kbyte sectors, 32Kbyte blocks,
>> 64Kbyte blocks, and/or the entire chip"
>>
>> which indicates to me that maybe we've just selected the larger section
>> size? If so then I'll change it to the first one in the new patch.
>>
>>>> + SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ
>>>> | SPI_NOR_4B_OPCODES)
>>>> + },
>>>>
>>>> /* Macronix */
>>>> { "mx25l512e", INFO(0xc22010, 0, 64 * 1024, 1, SECT_4K) },
>>>> @@ -1515,6 +1518,45 @@ static int macronix_quad_enable(struct spi_nor
>>>> *nor)
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * issi_unlock() - clear BP[0123] write-protection.
>>>> + * @nor: pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Bits [2345] of the Status Register are BP[0123].
>>>> + * ISSI chips use a different block protection scheme than other chips.
>>>> + * Just disable the write-protect unilaterally.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Return: 0 on success, -errno otherwise.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static int issi_unlock(struct spi_nor *nor)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int ret, val;
>>>> + u8 mask = SR_BP0 | SR_BP1 | SR_BP2 | SR_BP3;
>>>> +
>>>> + val = read_sr(nor);
>>>> + if (val < 0)
>>>> + return val;
>>>> + if (!(val & mask))
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + write_enable(nor);
>>>> +
>>>> + write_sr(nor, val & ~mask);
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = spi_nor_wait_till_ready(nor);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = read_sr(nor);
>>>> + if (ret > 0 && !(ret & mask)) {
>>>> + dev_info(nor->dev, "ISSI Block Protection Bits cleared\n");
>>>> + return 0;
>>>
>>> Is the dev_info() really needed ?
>>
>> Nope. I'll spin a v2 pending the above discussion.
>>
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + dev_err(nor->dev, "ISSI Block Protection Bits not cleared\n");
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Thanks!
On 08/07/2018 02:11 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 14:05:11 PDT (-0700), [email protected] wrote:
>> On 08/06/2018 10:58 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2018 02:27:54 PDT (-0700), [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On 08/04/2018 03:49 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>>>> From: "Wesley W. Terpstra" <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is used of the HiFive Unleashed development board.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wesley W. Terpstra <[email protected]>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c | 47
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>> include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h | 2 ++
>>>>> 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>>>>> b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>>>>> index d9c368c44194..e9a3557a3c23 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
>>>>> @@ -1072,6 +1072,9 @@ static const struct flash_info spi_nor_ids[] = {
>>>>> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
>>>>> { "is25wp128", INFO(0x9d7018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256,
>>>>> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
>>>>> + { "is25wp256d", INFO(0x9d7019, 0, 32 * 1024, 1024,
>>>>
>>>> Is there a reason for the trailing 'd' in is25wp256d ? I'd drop it.
>>>
>>> I'm honestly not sure. There are data sheets for both of them, but I
>>> don't see much of a difference
>>>
>>> http://www.issi.com/WW/pdf/IS25LP(WP)256D.pdf
>>> http://www.issi.com/WW/pdf/25LP-WP256.pdf
>>>
>>> Following the pattern, I'd expect to see
>>>
>>> { "is25wp256", INFO(0x9d7019, 0, 64 * 1024, 512,
>>> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ |
>>> SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
>>>
>>> versus
>>>
>>> { "is25wp256d", INFO(0x9d7019, 0, 32 * 1024, 1024,
>>> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ |
>>> SPI_NOR_4B_OPCODES)
>>> },
>>
>> They have the same ID ? Do we support the variant without the d already?
>
> Sorry for being a bit vague there. There is no is25wp256 in the list
> already, but if I follow the pattern from the other similar chips I get
> a different value for is25wp256 than what was proposed in the patch for
> an is25wp256d. From my understanding the different values are just
> because we picked a different block size, which seems possible because
> the original version of this patch was written before the other is25wp
> devices were added to the list.
The erase block size of is25wp256(d) is 4k, it supports 32k bulk erase
and 64k bulk erase too. 32k blocks will simply be erased using 8 4k
erase operations.
What would really be useful here is to extract what are the erase block
properties of the flash from SFDP tables (if they are supported) and
then calculate the best way to erase the flash. But this might be a
micro optimization and it's something that can be done later. There's
even some patchset in the ML which tried adding this a few months ago.
> What I'm proposing is adding an is25wp256 with the same block size as
> the other similar entries in the list. Looking at the data sheets they
> appear to have the same values for the "Read Product Identification"
> instruction.
I think that's a good start.
> The data sheets are shared with the is25lp256, which there is an entry
> for and matches my expected ID and block sizes.
>
>>> So in other words: the d less sections that are larger, and also has the
>>> 4B opcodes flag set. From the documentation in looks like the non-d
>>> version supports 3 and 4 byte opcodes, so I guess it's just a different
>>> physical layout?
>>>
>>> In the data sheet for both I see
>>>
>>> "Pages can be erased in groups of 4Kbyte sectors, 32Kbyte blocks,
>>> 64Kbyte blocks, and/or the entire chip"
>>>
>>> which indicates to me that maybe we've just selected the larger section
>>> size? If so then I'll change it to the first one in the new patch.
>>>
>>>>> + SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ
>>>>> | SPI_NOR_4B_OPCODES)
>>>>> + },
>>>>>
>>>>> /* Macronix */
>>>>> { "mx25l512e", INFO(0xc22010, 0, 64 * 1024, 1, SECT_4K) },
>>>>> @@ -1515,6 +1518,45 @@ static int macronix_quad_enable(struct spi_nor
>>>>> *nor)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * issi_unlock() - clear BP[0123] write-protection.
>>>>> + * @nor: pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Bits [2345] of the Status Register are BP[0123].
>>>>> + * ISSI chips use a different block protection scheme than other
>>>>> chips.
>>>>> + * Just disable the write-protect unilaterally.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Return: 0 on success, -errno otherwise.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +static int issi_unlock(struct spi_nor *nor)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + int ret, val;
>>>>> + u8 mask = SR_BP0 | SR_BP1 | SR_BP2 | SR_BP3;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + val = read_sr(nor);
>>>>> + if (val < 0)
>>>>> + return val;
>>>>> + if (!(val & mask))
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + write_enable(nor);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + write_sr(nor, val & ~mask);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + ret = spi_nor_wait_till_ready(nor);
>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + ret = read_sr(nor);
>>>>> + if (ret > 0 && !(ret & mask)) {
>>>>> + dev_info(nor->dev, "ISSI Block Protection Bits cleared\n");
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>
>>>> Is the dev_info() really needed ?
>>>
>>> Nope. I'll spin a v2 pending the above discussion.
>>>
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + dev_err(nor->dev, "ISSI Block Protection Bits not
>>>>> cleared\n");
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Thanks!
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut