From: <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>
To: <michael@walle.cc>
Cc: vigneshr@ti.com, richard@nod.at, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
boris.brezillon@collabora.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
miquel.raynal@bootlin.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mtd: spi-nor: atmel: remove global protection flag
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 12:59:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae6f0c14-591e-2c98-33f1-fe5ee1e603c4@microchip.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a8e086ac-a5f8-f422-82e1-758c7da794b4@microchip.com>
On 11/26/20 2:45 PM, Tudor Ambarus - M18064 wrote:
> On 11/25/20 8:17 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> Am 2020-11-24 20:09, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com:
>>> On 10/3/20 6:32 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
>>>> the content is safe
>>>>
>>>> This is considered bad for the following reasons:
>>>> (1) We only support the block protection with BPn bits for write
>>>> protection. Not all Atmel parts support this.
>>>> (2) Newly added flash chip will automatically inherit the "has
>>>> locking" support and thus needs to explicitly tested. Better
>>>> be opt-in instead of opt-out.
>>>> (3) There are already supported flashes which doesn't support
>>>> the locking scheme. So I assume this wasn't properly tested
>>>> before adding that chip; which enforces my previous argument
>>>> that locking support should be an opt-in.
>>>>
>>>> Remove the global flag and add individual flags to all flashes which
>>>> supports BP locking. In particular the following flashes don't support
>>>> the BP scheme:
>>>> - AT26F004
>>>> - AT25SL321
>>>> - AT45DB081D
>>>>
>>>> Please note, that some flashes which are marked as SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK
>>>> just
>>>> support Global Protection, i.e. not our supported block protection
>>>> locking scheme. This is to keep backwards compatibility with the
>>>> current "unlock all at boot" mechanism. In particular the following
>>>> flashes doesn't have BP bits:
>>>> - AT25DF041A
>>>> - AT25DF321
>>>> - AT25DF321A
>>>> - AT25DF641
>>>> - AT26DF081A
>>>> - AT26DF161A
>>>> - AT26DF321
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> changes since v4:
>>>> - none
>>>>
>>>> changes since v3/v2/v1:
>>>> - there was no such version because this patch was bundled with
>>>> another
>>>> patch
>>>>
>>>> changes since RFC:
>>>> - mention the flashes which just support the "Global Unprotect" in
>>>> the
>>>> commit message
>>>>
>>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/atmel.c | 28 +++++++++-------------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/atmel.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/atmel.c
>>>> index 3f5f21a473a6..49d392c6c8bc 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/atmel.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/atmel.c
>>>> @@ -10,37 +10,27 @@
>>>>
>>>> static const struct flash_info atmel_parts[] = {
>>>> /* Atmel -- some are (confusingly) marketed as "DataFlash" */
>>>> - { "at25fs010", INFO(0x1f6601, 0, 32 * 1024, 4, SECT_4K) },
>>>> - { "at25fs040", INFO(0x1f6604, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, SECT_4K) },
>>>> + { "at25fs010", INFO(0x1f6601, 0, 32 * 1024, 4, SECT_4K |
>>>> SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
>>>
>>> https://datasheetspdf.com/pdf-file/587164/ATMELCorporation/AT25FS010/1
>>> BP bits are at bit 2, 3, 5 and 6.
>>> BP0, BP1, BP3, BP4 and WPEN, are nonvolatile cells
>>>
>>>> + { "at25fs040", INFO(0x1f6604, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, SECT_4K |
>>>> SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
>>>
>>> https://datasheetspdf.com/pdf-file/587165/ATMELCorporation/AT25FS040/1
>>> BP bits are at bit 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
>>> BP0, BP1, BP2, BP3, BP4 are nonvolatile cells
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - { "at25df041a", INFO(0x1f4401, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, SECT_4K) },
>>>> - { "at25df321", INFO(0x1f4700, 0, 64 * 1024, 64, SECT_4K) },
>>>> - { "at25df321a", INFO(0x1f4701, 0, 64 * 1024, 64, SECT_4K) },
>>>> - { "at25df641", INFO(0x1f4800, 0, 64 * 1024, 128, SECT_4K) },
>>>> + { "at25df041a", INFO(0x1f4401, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, SECT_4K |
>>>> SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
>>>
>>> https://datasheetspdf.com/pdf-file/975331/Adesto/AT25DF041A/1
>>> Global Protect/Unprotect using Write SR command:
>>> Global Unlock: write 0x00 to SR
>>> Global Lock: Read SR. If SR.SPRL is 1 write 0xff to SR, else write
>>> 0x7f.
>>
>> That is not my understanding. Quote:
>> To perform a Global Protect, the appropriate WP pin and SPRL
>> conditions must be met, and the system must write a logical “1”
>> to bits 5, 4, 3, and 2 of the Status Register.
>>
>> And
>> Conversely, to per-form a Global Unprotect, the same WP and SPRL
>> conditions must be met but the system must write a logical “0” to
>> bits 5, 4, 3, and 2 of the Status Register
>>
>
> Right. I think we are both correct, and we should choose one method
> or the other depending on the level of support we want to introduce.
> If we want "locking ops", i.e. partial or full lock and unlock of the
> flash, we'll go your way. If we want to keep things as they were before
> 3e0930f109e76, we'll just support the global unlock by writing 0x00 to SR.
I'm wrong, please ignore. I mixed BP locking with individual sector protection.
Let me read again.
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-26 13:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-03 15:32 [PATCH v5 0/3] mtd: spi-nor: keep lock bits if they are non-volatile Michael Walle
2020-10-03 15:32 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] mtd: spi-nor: atmel: remove global protection flag Michael Walle
2020-11-24 19:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2020-11-25 18:17 ` Michael Walle
2020-11-26 12:45 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2020-11-26 12:59 ` Tudor.Ambarus [this message]
2020-11-26 16:42 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2020-11-26 18:44 ` Michael Walle
2020-10-03 15:32 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] mtd: spi-nor: sst: " Michael Walle
2020-11-24 19:50 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2020-10-03 15:32 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] mtd: spi-nor: keep lock bits if they are non-volatile Michael Walle
2020-11-25 12:21 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2020-11-25 18:52 ` Michael Walle
2020-11-26 16:47 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2020-11-26 20:46 ` Michael Walle
2020-10-27 22:26 ` [PATCH v5 0/3] " Michael Walle
2020-11-10 13:07 ` Vignesh Raghavendra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ae6f0c14-591e-2c98-33f1-fe5ee1e603c4@microchip.com \
--to=tudor.ambarus@microchip.com \
--cc=boris.brezillon@collabora.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=michael@walle.cc \
--cc=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).