* [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] dm: sf: Make SST flash write op work again
@ 2015-04-23 9:00 Bin Meng
2015-04-24 3:35 ` Simon Glass
2015-04-24 8:07 ` Jagan Teki
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bin Meng @ 2015-04-23 9:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
With SPI flash moving to driver model, commit fbb0991 "dm: Convert
spi_flash_probe() and 'sf probe' to use driver model" ignored the
SST flash-specific write op (byte program & word program), which
actually broke the SST flash from wroking.
This commit makes SST flash work again under driver model, by adding
a new SST flash-specific driver to handle the different write op
from the standard one.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
---
drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
index d19138d..47438d2 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
@@ -511,4 +511,35 @@ U_BOOT_DRIVER(spi_flash_std) = {
.ops = &spi_flash_std_ops,
};
+int spi_flash_sst_write(struct udevice *dev, u32 offset, size_t len,
+ const void *buf)
+{
+ struct spi_flash *flash = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev);
+
+ if (flash->spi->op_mode_tx & SPI_OPM_TX_BP)
+ return sst_write_bp(flash, offset, len, buf);
+ else
+ return sst_write_wp(flash, offset, len, buf);
+}
+
+static const struct dm_spi_flash_ops spi_flash_sst_ops = {
+ .read = spi_flash_std_read,
+ .write = spi_flash_sst_write,
+ .erase = spi_flash_std_erase,
+};
+
+static const struct udevice_id spi_flash_sst_ids[] = {
+ { .compatible = "spi-flash-sst" },
+ { }
+};
+
+U_BOOT_DRIVER(spi_flash_sst) = {
+ .name = "spi_flash_sst",
+ .id = UCLASS_SPI_FLASH,
+ .of_match = spi_flash_sst_ids,
+ .probe = spi_flash_std_probe,
+ .priv_auto_alloc_size = sizeof(struct spi_flash),
+ .ops = &spi_flash_sst_ops,
+};
+
#endif /* CONFIG_DM_SPI_FLASH */
--
1.8.2.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] dm: sf: Make SST flash write op work again
2015-04-23 9:00 [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] dm: sf: Make SST flash write op work again Bin Meng
@ 2015-04-24 3:35 ` Simon Glass
2015-04-24 8:07 ` Jagan Teki
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Simon Glass @ 2015-04-24 3:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On 23 April 2015 at 03:00, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
> With SPI flash moving to driver model, commit fbb0991 "dm: Convert
> spi_flash_probe() and 'sf probe' to use driver model" ignored the
> SST flash-specific write op (byte program & word program), which
> actually broke the SST flash from wroking.
>
> This commit makes SST flash work again under driver model, by adding
> a new SST flash-specific driver to handle the different write op
> from the standard one.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] dm: sf: Make SST flash write op work again
2015-04-23 9:00 [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] dm: sf: Make SST flash write op work again Bin Meng
2015-04-24 3:35 ` Simon Glass
@ 2015-04-24 8:07 ` Jagan Teki
2015-04-24 8:42 ` Bin Meng
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jagan Teki @ 2015-04-24 8:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi Bin,
On 23 April 2015 at 14:30, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
> With SPI flash moving to driver model, commit fbb0991 "dm: Convert
> spi_flash_probe() and 'sf probe' to use driver model" ignored the
> SST flash-specific write op (byte program & word program), which
> actually broke the SST flash from wroking.
>
> This commit makes SST flash work again under driver model, by adding
> a new SST flash-specific driver to handle the different write op
> from the standard one.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
> index d19138d..47438d2 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
> @@ -511,4 +511,35 @@ U_BOOT_DRIVER(spi_flash_std) = {
> .ops = &spi_flash_std_ops,
> };
>
> +int spi_flash_sst_write(struct udevice *dev, u32 offset, size_t len,
> + const void *buf)
> +{
> + struct spi_flash *flash = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev);
> +
> + if (flash->spi->op_mode_tx & SPI_OPM_TX_BP)
> + return sst_write_bp(flash, offset, len, buf);
> + else
> + return sst_write_wp(flash, offset, len, buf);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct dm_spi_flash_ops spi_flash_sst_ops = {
> + .read = spi_flash_std_read,
> + .write = spi_flash_sst_write,
> + .erase = spi_flash_std_erase,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct udevice_id spi_flash_sst_ids[] = {
> + { .compatible = "spi-flash-sst" },
> + { }
> +};
> +
> +U_BOOT_DRIVER(spi_flash_sst) = {
> + .name = "spi_flash_sst",
> + .id = UCLASS_SPI_FLASH,
> + .of_match = spi_flash_sst_ids,
> + .probe = spi_flash_std_probe,
> + .priv_auto_alloc_size = sizeof(struct spi_flash),
> + .ops = &spi_flash_sst_ops,
> +};
> +
> #endif /* CONFIG_DM_SPI_FLASH */
> --
> 1.8.2.1
I'm just curiosity to see different approach of being code duplicate
with just for sst write call.
What about this-
int spi_flash_std_write(struct udevice *dev, u32 offset, size_t len,
const void *buf)
{
struct spi_flash *flash = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev);
if defined(CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_SST)
if (flash->flags & SST_WR) {
if (flash->spi->op_mode_tx & SPI_OPM_TX_BP)
return sst_write_bp(flash, offset, len, buf);
else
return sst_write_wp(flash, offset, len, buf);
}
#endif
return spi_flash_cmd_write_ops(flash, offset, len, buf);
}
Of course this requires extra flags member in spi_flash, any other thoughts?
thanks!
--
Jagan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] dm: sf: Make SST flash write op work again
2015-04-24 8:07 ` Jagan Teki
@ 2015-04-24 8:42 ` Bin Meng
2015-04-24 9:25 ` Jagan Teki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bin Meng @ 2015-04-24 8:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi Jagan,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> On 23 April 2015 at 14:30, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> With SPI flash moving to driver model, commit fbb0991 "dm: Convert
>> spi_flash_probe() and 'sf probe' to use driver model" ignored the
>> SST flash-specific write op (byte program & word program), which
>> actually broke the SST flash from wroking.
>>
>> This commit makes SST flash work again under driver model, by adding
>> a new SST flash-specific driver to handle the different write op
>> from the standard one.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>
>> drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
>> index d19138d..47438d2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
>> @@ -511,4 +511,35 @@ U_BOOT_DRIVER(spi_flash_std) = {
>> .ops = &spi_flash_std_ops,
>> };
>>
>> +int spi_flash_sst_write(struct udevice *dev, u32 offset, size_t len,
>> + const void *buf)
>> +{
>> + struct spi_flash *flash = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev);
>> +
>> + if (flash->spi->op_mode_tx & SPI_OPM_TX_BP)
>> + return sst_write_bp(flash, offset, len, buf);
>> + else
>> + return sst_write_wp(flash, offset, len, buf);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct dm_spi_flash_ops spi_flash_sst_ops = {
>> + .read = spi_flash_std_read,
>> + .write = spi_flash_sst_write,
>> + .erase = spi_flash_std_erase,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct udevice_id spi_flash_sst_ids[] = {
>> + { .compatible = "spi-flash-sst" },
>> + { }
>> +};
>> +
>> +U_BOOT_DRIVER(spi_flash_sst) = {
>> + .name = "spi_flash_sst",
>> + .id = UCLASS_SPI_FLASH,
>> + .of_match = spi_flash_sst_ids,
>> + .probe = spi_flash_std_probe,
>> + .priv_auto_alloc_size = sizeof(struct spi_flash),
>> + .ops = &spi_flash_sst_ops,
>> +};
>> +
>> #endif /* CONFIG_DM_SPI_FLASH */
>> --
>> 1.8.2.1
>
> I'm just curiosity to see different approach of being code duplicate
> with just for sst write call.
>
> What about this-
> int spi_flash_std_write(struct udevice *dev, u32 offset, size_t len,
> const void *buf)
> {
> struct spi_flash *flash = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev);
>
> if defined(CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_SST)
> if (flash->flags & SST_WR) {
> if (flash->spi->op_mode_tx & SPI_OPM_TX_BP)
> return sst_write_bp(flash, offset, len, buf);
> else
> return sst_write_wp(flash, offset, len, buf);
> }
> #endif
>
> return spi_flash_cmd_write_ops(flash, offset, len, buf);
> }
>
> Of course this requires extra flags member in spi_flash, any other thoughts?
>
Yep, this way works too. Let me know which way you prefer and I can respin a v2.
Regards,
Bin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] dm: sf: Make SST flash write op work again
2015-04-24 8:42 ` Bin Meng
@ 2015-04-24 9:25 ` Jagan Teki
2015-04-24 9:31 ` Bin Meng
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jagan Teki @ 2015-04-24 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On 24 April 2015 at 14:12, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jagan,
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Bin,
>>
>> On 23 April 2015 at 14:30, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> With SPI flash moving to driver model, commit fbb0991 "dm: Convert
>>> spi_flash_probe() and 'sf probe' to use driver model" ignored the
>>> SST flash-specific write op (byte program & word program), which
>>> actually broke the SST flash from wroking.
>>>
>>> This commit makes SST flash work again under driver model, by adding
>>> a new SST flash-specific driver to handle the different write op
>>> from the standard one.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
>>> index d19138d..47438d2 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
>>> @@ -511,4 +511,35 @@ U_BOOT_DRIVER(spi_flash_std) = {
>>> .ops = &spi_flash_std_ops,
>>> };
>>>
>>> +int spi_flash_sst_write(struct udevice *dev, u32 offset, size_t len,
>>> + const void *buf)
>>> +{
>>> + struct spi_flash *flash = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev);
>>> +
>>> + if (flash->spi->op_mode_tx & SPI_OPM_TX_BP)
>>> + return sst_write_bp(flash, offset, len, buf);
>>> + else
>>> + return sst_write_wp(flash, offset, len, buf);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static const struct dm_spi_flash_ops spi_flash_sst_ops = {
>>> + .read = spi_flash_std_read,
>>> + .write = spi_flash_sst_write,
>>> + .erase = spi_flash_std_erase,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static const struct udevice_id spi_flash_sst_ids[] = {
>>> + { .compatible = "spi-flash-sst" },
>>> + { }
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +U_BOOT_DRIVER(spi_flash_sst) = {
>>> + .name = "spi_flash_sst",
>>> + .id = UCLASS_SPI_FLASH,
>>> + .of_match = spi_flash_sst_ids,
>>> + .probe = spi_flash_std_probe,
>>> + .priv_auto_alloc_size = sizeof(struct spi_flash),
>>> + .ops = &spi_flash_sst_ops,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> #endif /* CONFIG_DM_SPI_FLASH */
>>> --
>>> 1.8.2.1
>>
>> I'm just curiosity to see different approach of being code duplicate
>> with just for sst write call.
>>
>> What about this-
>> int spi_flash_std_write(struct udevice *dev, u32 offset, size_t len,
>> const void *buf)
>> {
>> struct spi_flash *flash = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev);
>>
>> if defined(CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_SST)
>> if (flash->flags & SST_WR) {
>> if (flash->spi->op_mode_tx & SPI_OPM_TX_BP)
>> return sst_write_bp(flash, offset, len, buf);
>> else
>> return sst_write_wp(flash, offset, len, buf);
>> }
>> #endif
>>
>> return spi_flash_cmd_write_ops(flash, offset, len, buf);
>> }
>>
>> Of course this requires extra flags member in spi_flash, any other thoughts?
>>
>
> Yep, this way works too. Let me know which way you prefer and I can respin a v2.
I preferred second.
thanks!
--
Jagan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] dm: sf: Make SST flash write op work again
2015-04-24 9:25 ` Jagan Teki
@ 2015-04-24 9:31 ` Bin Meng
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bin Meng @ 2015-04-24 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi Jagan,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 April 2015 at 14:12, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jagan,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Bin,
>>>
>>> On 23 April 2015 at 14:30, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> With SPI flash moving to driver model, commit fbb0991 "dm: Convert
>>>> spi_flash_probe() and 'sf probe' to use driver model" ignored the
>>>> SST flash-specific write op (byte program & word program), which
>>>> actually broke the SST flash from wroking.
>>>>
>>>> This commit makes SST flash work again under driver model, by adding
>>>> a new SST flash-specific driver to handle the different write op
>>>> from the standard one.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
>>>> index d19138d..47438d2 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
>>>> @@ -511,4 +511,35 @@ U_BOOT_DRIVER(spi_flash_std) = {
>>>> .ops = &spi_flash_std_ops,
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> +int spi_flash_sst_write(struct udevice *dev, u32 offset, size_t len,
>>>> + const void *buf)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct spi_flash *flash = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (flash->spi->op_mode_tx & SPI_OPM_TX_BP)
>>>> + return sst_write_bp(flash, offset, len, buf);
>>>> + else
>>>> + return sst_write_wp(flash, offset, len, buf);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct dm_spi_flash_ops spi_flash_sst_ops = {
>>>> + .read = spi_flash_std_read,
>>>> + .write = spi_flash_sst_write,
>>>> + .erase = spi_flash_std_erase,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct udevice_id spi_flash_sst_ids[] = {
>>>> + { .compatible = "spi-flash-sst" },
>>>> + { }
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +U_BOOT_DRIVER(spi_flash_sst) = {
>>>> + .name = "spi_flash_sst",
>>>> + .id = UCLASS_SPI_FLASH,
>>>> + .of_match = spi_flash_sst_ids,
>>>> + .probe = spi_flash_std_probe,
>>>> + .priv_auto_alloc_size = sizeof(struct spi_flash),
>>>> + .ops = &spi_flash_sst_ops,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_DM_SPI_FLASH */
>>>> --
>>>> 1.8.2.1
>>>
>>> I'm just curiosity to see different approach of being code duplicate
>>> with just for sst write call.
>>>
>>> What about this-
>>> int spi_flash_std_write(struct udevice *dev, u32 offset, size_t len,
>>> const void *buf)
>>> {
>>> struct spi_flash *flash = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev);
>>>
>>> if defined(CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_SST)
>>> if (flash->flags & SST_WR) {
>>> if (flash->spi->op_mode_tx & SPI_OPM_TX_BP)
>>> return sst_write_bp(flash, offset, len, buf);
>>> else
>>> return sst_write_wp(flash, offset, len, buf);
>>> }
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> return spi_flash_cmd_write_ops(flash, offset, len, buf);
>>> }
>>>
>>> Of course this requires extra flags member in spi_flash, any other thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> Yep, this way works too. Let me know which way you prefer and I can respin a v2.
>
> I preferred second.
>
OK, will respin a v2 soon. Thanks,
Regards,
Bin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-04-24 9:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-04-23 9:00 [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] dm: sf: Make SST flash write op work again Bin Meng
2015-04-24 3:35 ` Simon Glass
2015-04-24 8:07 ` Jagan Teki
2015-04-24 8:42 ` Bin Meng
2015-04-24 9:25 ` Jagan Teki
2015-04-24 9:31 ` Bin Meng
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.