Date:   Fri, 17 Dec 2021 01:35:37 +0530
From:   Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com>
To:     Alexander A Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com>
CC:     <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>,
        Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: spi-nor: Introduce erase_proto
Message-ID: <20211216200535.jikqd42nohr4477n@ti.com>
References: <20211209100813.61713-1-alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211209100813.61713-1-alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Precedence: bulk

Hi Alexander,

On 09/12/21 11:08AM, Alexander A Sverdlin wrote:
> From: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com>
> 
> I've been looking into non-working erase on mt25qu256a and pinpointed it to
> be write_proto 1-4-4 selected from SFDP while the chip only supports 1-1-0
> erase.
> 
> For now just introduce the separate protocol without functional change and
> leave the real fix for the following patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c  | 9 ++++++---
>  include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h | 4 +++-
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> index 2e21d5a..dcd02ea 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ static int spi_nor_controller_ops_write_reg(struct spi_nor *nor, u8 opcode,
>  
>  static int spi_nor_controller_ops_erase(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t offs)
>  {
> -	if (spi_nor_protocol_is_dtr(nor->write_proto))
> +	if (spi_nor_protocol_is_dtr(nor->erase_proto))
>  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  
>  	return nor->controller_ops->erase(nor, offs);
> @@ -1186,7 +1186,7 @@ static int spi_nor_erase_chip(struct spi_nor *nor)
>  				   SPI_MEM_OP_NO_DUMMY,
>  				   SPI_MEM_OP_NO_DATA);
>  
> -		spi_nor_spimem_setup_op(nor, &op, nor->write_proto);
> +		spi_nor_spimem_setup_op(nor, &op, nor->erase_proto);
>  
>  		ret = spi_mem_exec_op(nor->spimem, &op);
>  	} else {
> @@ -1331,7 +1331,7 @@ int spi_nor_erase_sector(struct spi_nor *nor, u32 addr)
>  				   SPI_MEM_OP_NO_DUMMY,
>  				   SPI_MEM_OP_NO_DATA);
>  
> -		spi_nor_spimem_setup_op(nor, &op, nor->write_proto);
> +		spi_nor_spimem_setup_op(nor, &op, nor->erase_proto);
>  
>  		return spi_mem_exec_op(nor->spimem, &op);
>  	} else if (nor->controller_ops->erase) {
> @@ -2727,6 +2727,9 @@ static void spi_nor_late_init_params(struct spi_nor *nor)
>  	 */
>  	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_LOCK && !nor->params->locking_ops)
>  		spi_nor_init_default_locking_ops(nor);
> +
> +	if (!nor->erase_proto)
> +		nor->erase_proto = nor->write_proto;

I get that you are trying to not break any existing flashes with this, 
but I don't quite like it. We should keep the same initialization flow 
with erase_proto as with write_proto, read_proto, etc. That is, 
initialize it to SNOR_PROTO_1_1_1 in spi_nor_scan() and then let the 
initialization procedure change it as needed.

The problem with this is of course that it could break some flashes by 
selecting the wrong erase. I would expect _most_ flashes to use 
erase_proto as 1-1-1 but I of course haven't went and looked at every 
single flash to point out the exceptions.

I would like to hear from others if they think it is okay to do this.

>  }
>  
>  /**

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
Texas Instruments Inc.