Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Jul 2022 16:54:16 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: spi-nor: Introduce erase_proto | From | Alexander Sverdlin <> |
| |
Hi Tudor!
On 18/07/2022 18:50, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: >>> @@ -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. >> > Doesn't [1] solve Alexander's problem? Alexander, would you please test > Patrice's patch and provide a Tested-by tag if everything is ok?
Yes, looks good, provided the Tested-by tag.
> Thanks, > ta > > [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-mtd/patch/20220629133013.3382393-1-patrice.chotard@foss.st.com/ >
-- Best regards, Alexander Sverdlin.
| |