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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAK8P3a13N_wNORz_3cYHTN8t29pPrY+dJ+g+1Ga_MmG1TmrUQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFmMkTGm3pMsBzEenYOsRbhOZKFhbHiZ5LxPyVmTdYTTRpKzVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a2_RV33kiJ0c34aopZ4iG7LYBR-u=-+BbC+Upyjh1T0Eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFmMkTHqQO1Gj7VeXr4Y_Umb1KzZc2Pf=1pDQvPPpb_XeAFPqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200819065721.GA1375436@lahna.fi.intel.com> <CAK8P3a0Bq-ucgC4Xue+B_HV97pTX8YRr4hYh1gfrfGBV_H1EUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200819091123.GE1375436@lahna.fi.intel.com> <CAK8P3a19MLfQARXEWzCD-ySq4t9nsyryB+con33HsQ193+muMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200824082227.GU1375436@lahna.fi.intel.com> <CAK8P3a0==cZDHwZfqvCuvUg9jfjBOBG+AAomE9eqJ2xm-xNLvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200824091542.GC1375436@lahna.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200824091542.GC1375436@lahna.fi.intel.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Mon, 24 Aug 2020 11:31:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2ipcVLOzZ5jsDSmWkm=rsE7UQ8rgTU-o6me+vX+gVa9g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: intel-spi: Do not try to make the SPI flash
 chip writable
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Daniel Gutson <daniel@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 <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alex Bazhaniuk <alex@eclypsium.com>,
        Richard Hughes <hughsient@gmail.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:15 AM Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:08:33AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:22 AM Mika Westerberg
> > <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 06:06:03PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 11:11 AM Mika Westerberg
> > > >
> > > > The mtd core just checks both the permissions on the device node (which
> > > > default to 0600 without any special udev rules) and the MTD_WRITEABLE
> > > > on the underlying device that is controlled by the module parameter
> > > > in case of intel-spi{,-platform,-pci}.c.
> > >
> > > OK, thanks.
> > >
> > > Since we cannot really get rid of the module parameter (AFAIK there are
> > > users for it), I still think we should just make the "writeable" to
> > > apply to the PCI part as well. That should at least make it consistent,
> > > and it also solves Daniel's case.
> >
> > Can you explain Daniel's case then? I still don't understand what he
> > actually wants.
> >
> > As I keep repeating, the module parameter *does* apply to the pci
> > driver front-end since it determines whether the driver will disallow
> > writes to the mtd device without it. The only difference is that the pci
> > driver will attempt to set the hardware bit without checking the
> > module parameter first, while the platform driver does not. If the
> > module parameter is not set however, the state of the hardware
> > bit is never checked again.
>
> I think Daniel wants the PCI driver not to set the hardware bit by
> default (same as the platform driver).

Sure, but *why*?

    Arnd