From: <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>
To: <michael@walle.cc>
Cc: js07.lee@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
vigneshr@ti.com, js07.lee@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mtd: spi-nor: add 4bit block protection support
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:47:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4000296.ZurDTCRVlM@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56a82fb7956ef9004828569f0dbe8e8d@walle.cc>
Hi, Michael,
On Monday, February 10, 2020 10:33:41 AM EET Michael Walle wrote:
cut
> > On Monday, February 3, 2020 3:56:58 PM EET Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>> /*
> >> >>>>>>>>> * Need smallest pow such that:
> >> >>>>>>>>> *
> >> >>>>>>>>> @@ -1908,7 +1972,17 @@ static int stm_lock(struct
> >> >>>>>>>>> spi_nor
> >> >>>>>>>>> *nor,
> >> >>>>>>>>> loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
> >> >>>>>>>>> * pow = ceil(log2(size / len)) = log2(size)
> >> >>>>>>>>> -
> >> >>>>>>>>> floor(log2(len))
> >> >>>>>>>>> */
> >> >>>>>>>>> pow = ilog2(mtd->size) - ilog2(lock_len);
> >> >>>>>>>>> - val = mask - (pow << SR_BP_SHIFT);
> >> >>>>>>>>> +
> >> >>>>>>>>> + if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_BP3) {
> >> >>>>>>>>> + val = ilog2(nor->n_sectors) + 1 - pow;
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Why do you use a new calculation here? As far as I can
> >> >>>>>>>> see,
> >> >>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>> method is
> >> >>>>>>>> the same except that is has one bit more. That also
> >> >>>>>>>> raises
> >> >>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>> question why
> >> >>>>>>>> n_sectors is now needed?
> >>
> >> Flash devices have variable sector size, 64KB, 128KB or 256KB... While
> >> mapping of number of sectors locked to BP bits is dependent on rules 1
> >> to 3 you mentioned below, the size or area of flash protected depends
> >> on
> >> sector size.
> >>
> >> So, the current formula in spi-nor.c (ignoring TB and other
> >> boilerplate):
> >>
> >> pow = ilog2(mtd->size) - ilog2(lock_len);
> >> val = mask - (pow << shift);
> >>
> >> This works only for devices with 64KB sector size as 8MB flash with
> >> 64KB
> >> sector size would have 128 sectors (BP0-2 => 0b111 => 2^7).
> >>
> >> A more generic formula would be:
> >>
> >> Find n where 2^(n - 1) = len/sector-size
> >> OR 2^ (n - 1) = len * n_sectors / mtd->size
> >>
> >> Which solves to:
> >>
> >> pow = ilog2(mtd->size) - ilog2(lock_len);
> >> val = ilog2(nor->n_sectors) + 1 - pow;
> >
> > The current mainline locking support is limited. Michael spotted a good
> > improvement, but I think there are still others that we should
> > consider.
>
> Sure, as I said my patch was just to show, that there is an underlying
> problem
> and that we should not take the 4th BP bit to differentiate between the
> two
> different formulas.
Right, this is the goal.
Let me try to extend the description of the proposal.
>
> > We should use a single formula, for all the BP cases. How about the
> > following:
> >
> > bp_slots_available = (bp_mask >> shift) + 1 - 2;
This formula is derived from Michael's patch.
A slot (to me) is a horizontal line in the Memory protection table. Maybe we
can find a better/standardized name for this.
So for BP0-2, bp_slots_available = 6, and for BP0-3, bp_slots_available = 14.
Notice that I stripped the two special cases: lock none and lock all.
> > bp_slots_needed = ilog2(nor->info->n_sectors);
With bp_slots_needed I tried to describe how many slots are needed if the
protected density for the first slot is at minimum (sector size).
> >
> > if (bp_slots_needed > bp_slots_available) {
> >
> > bp_slot_count = bp_slots_available;
> > bp_min_slot_size = nor->info->n_sectors <<
> >
> > (bp_slots_needed - bp_slots_available);
>
> mhh, what is the unit of bp_min_slot_size? bytes or sectors? I guess it
> should
It's bytes. Take a look at W25Q128JV. The sector size for this flash is
64KByte. The flash has 256 sectors. For this specific case:
bp_slots_available = 6;
bp_slots_needed = 8;
The if condition is true, so
bp_slot_count = 6;
bp_min_slot_size = 64k << (8 - 6); //256k
which is exactly the protected density for the first slot. The protected
densities of the other slots can be computed by multiplying with powers of 2.
> be bytes, eg for a 8MiB flash it would be 128kiB and for a 16MiB flash
> it would
> be 256kiB (if there are 3 BP bits).
>
> > } else {
> >
> > bp_slot_count = bp_slots_needed;
> > bp_min_slot_size = mtd->size >> bp_block_count;
typo: s/bp_block_count/bp_slot_count
>
> this is a complicated way of saying its the size of one sector, isn't
> it?
> can't we use nor->info->sector_size here? Eg.
>
> if (bp_slots_needed > bp_slots_available) {
> bp_slot_count = bp_slots_available;
> bp_min_slot_size = nor->info->sector_size <<
> (bp_slots_needed - bp_slots_available);
> } else {
> bp_slot_count = bp_slots_needed;
> bp_min_slot_size = nor->info->sector_size;
> }
you're right, we're in the else case, where the assumption that the minimum
protected density is sector size is true, we can use directly nor->info-
>sector_size.
>
> > }
> >
> > When both can_be_bottom and can_be_top are true, we prefer the top
> > protection,
> > which is incorrect/buggy/sub-optimal. If the received offset is not
> > aligned to
> > one of the start addresses of the bp slots, then we should up/down
> > align the
> > offset to the closest bp slot, depending on TB and which (top or
> > bottom) fits
> > better. Based on the updated offset and length we can compute the lock
> > range,
> > and after that:
> >
> > n = ilog2(bp_lock_range/bp_min_slot_size) + 1;
> > val = mask - (n << shift);
>
> btw. we should catch the two special cases:
> - lock none -> 0 (that was already the case)
> - lock all -> all BP bits
>
> The latter is important if "bp_slots_needed < bp_slots_available"
> because there
> are multiple settings for protect all. Most flashes will define any
> remaining
> setting for "protect all", but I've also seen flashes where the
> in-between ones
> were undefined (not mentioned) and only the "all bit set" was protect
> all.
This case is addressed by using bp_slot_count and bp_slots_available. We're in
the else case from above. From bp_slot_count up to the bp_slots_available,
those slots are "protect all".
Cheers,
ta
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-10 9:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CGME20200113055910epcas1p4f97dfeb465b00d66649d6321cffc7b5a@epcas1p4.samsung.com>
2020-01-13 5:59 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] mtd: spi-nor: introduce SR_BP_SHIFT define Jungseung Lee
[not found] ` <CGME20200113055910epcas1p377b2618bea2ca860acac2b6f34e2b83e@epcas1p3.samsung.com>
2020-01-13 5:59 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] mtd: spi-nor: add 4bit block protection support Jungseung Lee
2020-01-14 10:49 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2020-01-17 15:06 ` Jungseung Lee
2020-01-22 11:42 ` Jungseung Lee
2020-01-22 14:31 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2020-01-22 17:14 ` Michael Walle
2020-01-23 3:59 ` Jungseung Lee
2020-01-23 8:15 ` Michael Walle
2020-02-11 7:52 ` chenxiang (M)
2020-03-04 5:20 ` Jungseung Lee
2020-03-04 8:36 ` chenxiang (M)
2020-03-07 7:40 ` Jungseung Lee
2020-01-22 19:36 ` Michael Walle
2020-01-23 6:22 ` Jungseung Lee
2020-01-23 8:10 ` Michael Walle
2020-01-23 8:53 ` Jungseung Lee
2020-01-23 9:31 ` Michael Walle
2020-01-28 11:01 ` Jungseung Lee
2020-01-28 12:29 ` [SPAM] " Michael Walle
2020-01-30 8:17 ` Jungseung Lee
2020-01-30 8:36 ` [SPAM] " Michael Walle
2020-01-30 10:07 ` Jungseung Lee
2020-02-03 13:56 ` Vignesh Raghavendra
2020-02-03 14:38 ` [SPAM] " Michael Walle
2020-02-03 14:58 ` Jungseung Lee
2020-02-03 17:31 ` Vignesh Raghavendra
2020-02-07 12:17 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2020-02-10 8:33 ` Michael Walle
2020-02-10 9:47 ` Tudor.Ambarus [this message]
2020-02-10 9:59 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2020-02-10 10:40 ` Michael Walle
2020-02-10 11:27 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2020-02-10 12:14 ` Michael Walle
2020-02-10 15:50 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2020-02-10 10:29 ` Michael Walle
2020-02-10 11:26 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2020-02-19 10:50 ` Jungseung Lee
2020-02-19 11:08 ` Michael Walle
2020-02-19 11:23 ` Jungseung Lee
2020-02-19 11:36 ` Michael Walle
2020-02-20 19:09 ` Michael Walle
2020-02-21 9:30 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2020-02-25 8:20 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2020-02-25 9:25 ` Jungseung Lee
[not found] ` <CGME20200113055910epcas1p384c04182e7c643163d659d42fafd01b3@epcas1p3.samsung.com>
2020-01-13 5:59 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] mtd: spi-nor: support lock/unlock for a few Micron chips Jungseung Lee
2020-01-13 12:30 ` John Garry
2020-01-13 12:40 ` Jungseung Lee
2020-01-13 12:45 ` Jungseung Lee
2020-01-13 13:00 ` John Garry
2020-02-17 0:18 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] mtd: spi-nor: introduce SR_BP_SHIFT define Tudor.Ambarus
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=4000296.ZurDTCRVlM@localhost.localdomain \
--to=tudor.ambarus@microchip.com \
--cc=js07.lee@gmail.com \
--cc=js07.lee@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=michael@walle.cc \
--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).