Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:25:11 -0700 | From | Brian Norris <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0001.c: fix resume for LH28F640BF chips |
| |
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 01:23:01AM +0200, Andrea Adami wrote: > After '#echo mem > /sys/power/state' some devices can not be properly resumed > because apparently the MTD Partition Configuration Register has been reset > to default thus the rootfs cannot be mounted cleanly on resume. > An example of this can be found in the SA-1100 Developer's Manual at 9.5.3.3 > where the second step of the Sleep Shutdown Sequence is described: > "An internal reset is applied to the SA-1100. All units are reset...". > > As workaround we refresh the PCR value as done initially on chip setup. > > This behavior and the fix are confirmed by our tests done on 2 different Zaurus > collie units with kernel 3.17. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Adami <andrea.adami@gmail.com>
Who's the author? I have a 'From' header (which becomes the patch author) of Andrea, but the sign-off is Dmitry. If you add a 'From: xxx <yyy@zzz.tld>' line to the beginning of the email, that can clarify the author, even when the author is not emailing.
git-send-email will also handle that for you, if the original git commit has the proper author.
> --- > drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c > index a7543ba..59e2355 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c > @@ -2590,6 +2590,8 @@ static void cfi_intelext_resume(struct mtd_info *mtd) > > /* Go to known state. Chip may have been power cycled */ > if (chip->state == FL_PM_SUSPENDED) { > + /* Refresh LH28F640BF Partition Config. Register */ > + fixup_LH28F640BF(mtd);
OK, that looks fine.
But while we're at it, it seems like any chip which has a boot-time fixup hook in cfi_fixup_table[] should be run at resume time, since those chips may have lost power too. For instance, it looks like fixup_unlock_powerup_lock() would need rerun.
I'm not sure if we should do a more invasive patch like that without any testing, though.
> map_write(map, CMD(0xFF), cfi->chips[i].start); > chip->oldstate = chip->state = FL_READY; > wake_up(&chip->wq);
Brian
| |