Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
In-Reply-To: <20191007112442.783e4fbe@xps13>
References: <1568793387-25199-1-git-send-email-masonccyang@mxic.com.tw> <1568793387-25199-2-git-send-email-masonccyang@mxic.com.tw>
        <20191007104511.5aa7b8f2@xps13> <20191007112442.783e4fbe@xps13>
To:     "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Cc:     bbrezillon@kernel.org, computersforpeace@gmail.com,
        dwmw2@infradead.org, frieder.schrempf@kontron.de,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, juliensu@mxic.com.tw,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
        marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com, marek.vasut@gmail.com, richard@nod.at,
        tglx@linutronix.de, vigneshr@ti.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] mtd: rawnand: Add support Macronix Block Protection
 function
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <OFEDE76FEE.8BC48D9E-ON4825848D.000BCC94-4825848D.000E0643@mxic.com.tw>
From:   masonccyang@mxic.com.tw
Date:   Tue, 8 Oct 2019 10:33:11 +0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


Hi Miquel,

> > 
> > > Macronix AC series support using SET/GET_FEATURES to change
> > > Block Protection and Unprotection.
> > > 
> > > MTD default _lock/_unlock function replacement by manufacturer
> > > postponed initialization. 
> > 
> > Why would we do that?
> > 
> > Anyway your solution looks overkill, if we ever decide to
> > implement these hooks for raw nand, it is better just to not
> > overwrite them in nand_scan_tail() if they have been filled
> > previously (ie. by the manufacturer code).
> 
> Actually you should add two NAND hooks that do the interface with the
> MTD hooks. In the NAND hooks, check that the request is to lock all the
> device, otherwise return -ENOTSUPP.

sorry, can't get your point.

Because the NAND entire chip will be protected if PT(protection) pin 
is active high at power-on.

> 
> Then fill-in these two hooks from the manufacturer code, without the
> postponed init.
> 

But in the final of nand_scan_tail(), mtd->_lock/_unlock will be
filled by NULL, right ?

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.

=====================================================================