Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: 9jwBHqog9KLWoOggEYh55zbnv8MF7AKv248tvbzaM2mkJ3KH4QQoVC0tNEpQHG75rOKh4kXceE
 +3/hBebNutSg==
IronPort-SDR: H9lYg74O1xebpaI6b6EZdRmjDAQPlOpwirNhgyZ2s0cdTHeBTHCu2D1Fq/0HrZRTKlhci/g4ng
 B8Ov6ZIjMLCg==
Date:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 13:27:11 +0300
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To:     Richard Hughes <hughsient@gmail.com>
Cc:     Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com>,
        Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>,
        linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alex Bazhaniuk <alex@eclypsium.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Module argument to control whether intel-spi-pci
 attempts to turn the SPI flash chip writeable
Message-ID: <20200803102711.GK1375436@lahna.fi.intel.com>
References: <20200724212853.11601-1-daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com>
 <20200803095720.GC1375436@lahna.fi.intel.com>
 <CAD2FfiFt6=OueX3E0g2ckPU+7F69yCmM0+bzF_6UD1sd4E_k_A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD2FfiFt6=OueX3E0g2ckPU+7F69yCmM0+bzF_6UD1sd4E_k_A@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 11:18:12AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 10:57, Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > I think instead of this we should simply make it so that the driver
> > never tries to make the chip writable.
> 
> I think this is a good idea, but I wasn't sure if it was an acceptable
> behaviour change. Should the driver still try to set BCR_WPD when
> writing an image (i.e. defer the setting of write enable until later),
> or just not set the BCR register at all? I think your last comment was
> the latter, but wanted to check.

I would say not set it at all. I think it was (my) mistake to set it in
the first place.