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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAK7LNAR0FemABUg5uN5fhy5LRsOm7n5GhmFVVHE8T57knDM9Ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200127153559.60a83e76@xps13> <20200127164554.34a21177@collabora.com>
 <20200127164755.29183962@xps13> <20200128075833.129902f6@collabora.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200128075833.129902f6@collabora.com>
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 29 Jan 2020 19:06:46 +0900
Message-ID: <CAK7LNAQyK+jy4pm5M5z58uD5Zdv95Day6C6D3Gwvpv2C4Vh53Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: How to handle write-protect pin of NAND device ?
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
Cc:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 3:58 PM Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon@collabora.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 16:47:55 +0100
> Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Hello,
> >
> > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com> wrote on Mon, 27 Jan
> > 2020 16:45:54 +0100:
> >
> > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:35:59 +0100
> > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Masahiro,
> > > >
> > > > Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote on Mon, 27 Jan 2020
> > > > 21:55:25 +0900:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a question about the
> > > > > WP_n pin of a NAND chip.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as I see, the NAND framework does not
> > > > > handle it.
> > > >
> > > > There is a nand_check_wp() which reads the status of the pin before
> > > > erasing/writing.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead, it is handled in a driver level.
> > > > > I see some DT-bindings that handle the WP_n pin.
> > > > >
> > > > > $ git grep wp -- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/
> > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/brcm,brcmnand.txt:-
> > > > > brcm,nand-has-wp          : Some versions of this IP include a
> > > > > write-protect
> > > >
> > > > Just checked: brcmnand de-assert WP when writing/erasing and asserts it
> > > > otherwise. IMHO this switching is useless.
> > > >
> > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ingenic,jz4780-nand.txt:-
> > > > > wp-gpios: GPIO specifier for the write protect pin.
> > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/ingenic,jz4780-nand.txt:
> > > > >          wp-gpios = <&gpf 22 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nvidia-tegra20-nand.txt:-
> > > > > wp-gpios: GPIO specifier for the write protect pin.
> > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nvidia-tegra20-nand.txt:
> > > > >          wp-gpios = <&gpio TEGRA_GPIO(S, 0) GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> > > >
> > > > In both cases, the WP GPIO is unused in the code, just de-asserted at
> > > > boot time like what you do in the patch below.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I wrote a patch to avoid read-only issue in some cases:
> > > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1229749/
> > > > >
> > > > > Generally speaking, we expect NAND devices
> > > > > are writable in Linux. So, I think my patch is OK.
> > > >
> > > > I think the patch is fine.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I asked this myself:
> > > > > Is there a useful case to assert the write protect
> > > > > pin in order to make the NAND chip really read-only?
> > > > > For example, the system recovery image is stored in
> > > > > a read-only device, and the write-protect pin is
> > > > > kept asserted to assure nobody accidentally corrupts it.
> > > >
> > > > It is very likely that the same device is used for RO and RW storage so
> > > > in most cases this is not possible. We already have squashfs which is
> > > > actually read-only at filesystem level, I'm not sure it is needed to
> > > > enforce this at a lower level... Anyway if there is actually a pin for
> > > > that, one might want to handle the pin directly as a GPIO, what do you
> > > > think?
> > >
> > > FWIW, I've always considered the WP pin as a way to protect against
> > > spurious destructive command emission, which is most likely to happen
> > > during transition phases (bootloader -> linux, linux -> kexeced-linux,
> > > platform reset, ..., or any other transition where the pin state might
> > > be undefined at some point). This being said, if you're worried about
> > > other sources of spurious cmds (say your bus is shared between
> > > different kind of memory devices, and the CS pin is unreliable), you
> > > might want to leave the NAND in a write-protected state de-asserting WP
> > > only when explicitly issuing a destructive command (program page, erase
> > > block).
> >
> > Ok so with this in mind, only the brcmnand driver does a useful use of
> > the WP output.
>
> Well, I'd just say that brcmnand is more paranoid, which is a good
> thing I guess, but that doesn't make other solutions useless, just less
> safe. We could probably flag operations as 'destructive' at the
> nand_operation level, so drivers can assert/de-assert the pin on a
> per-operation basis.

Sounds a good idea.

If it is supported in the NAND framework,
I will be happy to implement in the Denali NAND driver.

Thank you.


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada