[PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: fix 4-byte opcode support for w25q256

[PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: fix 4-byte opcode support for w25q256

[Mantas Pucka]

There are 2 different chips (w25q256fv and w25q256jv) that share
the same JEDEC ID. Only w25q256jv fully supports 4-byte opcodes.
Use SFDP header version to differentiate between them.

Signed-off-by: Mantas Pucka <mantas@8devices.com>
---
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c    |  4 ----
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h    |  6 ++++++
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
index f6038d3..27838f6 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
@@ -21,10 +21,6 @@
 #define SFDP_4BAIT_ID		0xff84  /* 4-byte Address Instruction Table */
 
 #define SFDP_SIGNATURE		0x50444653U
-#define SFDP_JESD216_MAJOR	1
-#define SFDP_JESD216_MINOR	0
-#define SFDP_JESD216A_MINOR	5
-#define SFDP_JESD216B_MINOR	6
 
 struct sfdp_header {
 	u32		signature; /* Ox50444653U <=> "SFDP" */
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
index e0a8ded..b84abd0 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
@@ -7,6 +7,12 @@
 #ifndef __LINUX_MTD_SFDP_H
 #define __LINUX_MTD_SFDP_H
 
+/* SFDP revisions */
+#define SFDP_JESD216_MAJOR	1
+#define SFDP_JESD216_MINOR	0
+#define SFDP_JESD216A_MINOR	5
+#define SFDP_JESD216B_MINOR	6
+
 /* Basic Flash Parameter Table */
 
 /*
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
index 17deaba..50b2478 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
@@ -8,6 +8,32 @@
 
 #include "core.h"
 
+static int
+w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups(struct spi_nor *nor,
+			 const struct sfdp_parameter_header *bfpt_header,
+			 const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt,
+			 struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params)
+{
+	/*
+	 * W25Q256JV supports 4B opcodes but W25Q256FV does not.
+	 * Unfortunately, Winbond has re-used the same JEDEC ID for both
+	 * variants which prevents us from defining a new entry in the parts
+	 * table.
+	 * To differentiate between W25Q256JV and W25Q256FV check SFDP header
+	 * version: only JV has JESD216A compliant structure (version 5)
+	 */
+
+	if (bfpt_header->major == SFDP_JESD216_MAJOR &&
+	    bfpt_header->minor == SFDP_JESD216A_MINOR)
+		nor->flags |= SNOR_F_4B_OPCODES;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static struct spi_nor_fixups w25q256_fixups = {
+	.post_bfpt = w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups,
+};
+
 static const struct flash_info winbond_parts[] = {
 	/* Winbond -- w25x "blocks" are 64K, "sectors" are 4KiB */
 	{ "w25x05", INFO(0xef3010, 0, 64 * 1024,  1,  SECT_4K) },
@@ -53,8 +79,8 @@ static const struct flash_info winbond_parts[] = {
 	{ "w25q80bl", INFO(0xef4014, 0, 64 * 1024,  16, SECT_4K) },
 	{ "w25q128", INFO(0xef4018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, SECT_4K) },
 	{ "w25q256", INFO(0xef4019, 0, 64 * 1024, 512,
-			  SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ |
-			  SPI_NOR_4B_OPCODES) },
+			  SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ)
+			  .fixups = &w25q256_fixups },
 	{ "w25q256jvm", INFO(0xef7019, 0, 64 * 1024, 512,
 			     SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
 	{ "w25q256jw", INFO(0xef6019, 0, 64 * 1024, 512,
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: fix 4-byte opcode support for w25q256

[Tudor.Ambarus]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 4:48:30 PM EEST Mantas Pucka wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> content is safe
> 
> There are 2 different chips (w25q256fv and w25q256jv) that share
> the same JEDEC ID. Only w25q256jv fully supports 4-byte opcodes.
> Use SFDP header version to differentiate between them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mantas Pucka <mantas@8devices.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c    |  4 ----
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h    |  6 ++++++
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
> index f6038d3..27838f6 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
> @@ -21,10 +21,6 @@
>  #define SFDP_4BAIT_ID          0xff84  /* 4-byte Address Instruction Table
> */
> 
>  #define SFDP_SIGNATURE         0x50444653U
> -#define SFDP_JESD216_MAJOR     1
> -#define SFDP_JESD216_MINOR     0
> -#define SFDP_JESD216A_MINOR    5
> -#define SFDP_JESD216B_MINOR    6
> 
>  struct sfdp_header {
>         u32             signature; /* Ox50444653U <=> "SFDP" */
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
> index e0a8ded..b84abd0 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
> @@ -7,6 +7,12 @@
>  #ifndef __LINUX_MTD_SFDP_H
>  #define __LINUX_MTD_SFDP_H
> 
> +/* SFDP revisions */
> +#define SFDP_JESD216_MAJOR     1
> +#define SFDP_JESD216_MINOR     0
> +#define SFDP_JESD216A_MINOR    5
> +#define SFDP_JESD216B_MINOR    6
> +
>  /* Basic Flash Parameter Table */
> 
>  /*
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
> index 17deaba..50b2478 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
> @@ -8,6 +8,32 @@
> 
>  #include "core.h"
> 
> +static int
> +w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups(struct spi_nor *nor,
> +                        const struct sfdp_parameter_header *bfpt_header,
> +                        const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt,
> +                        struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params)
> +{
> +       /*
> +        * W25Q256JV supports 4B opcodes but W25Q256FV does not.
> +        * Unfortunately, Winbond has re-used the same JEDEC ID for both
> +        * variants which prevents us from defining a new entry in the parts
> +        * table.
> +        * To differentiate between W25Q256JV and W25Q256FV check SFDP
> header +        * version: only JV has JESD216A compliant structure
> (version 5) +        */
> +
> +       if (bfpt_header->major == SFDP_JESD216_MAJOR &&
> +           bfpt_header->minor == SFDP_JESD216A_MINOR)

Not sure if this is generic enough. Are you sure that the JV version will 
never have an update for the sfdp tables?

> +               nor->flags |= SNOR_F_4B_OPCODES;
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct spi_nor_fixups w25q256_fixups = {
> +       .post_bfpt = w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups,
> +};
> +

If the post_bfpt hook is called, you already have a valid bfpt table. If the 
differentiator between the JV and FV versions is that only the JV defines the 
SFDP tables, then your w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups() can look as:

static int w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups()
{
	nor->flags |= SNOR_F_4B_OPCODES;
	return 0;
}

Cheers,
ta

Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: fix 4-byte opcode support for w25q256

[Mantas]

On 2020-04-20 13:53, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 4:48:30 PM EEST Mantas Pucka wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
>> content is safe
>>
>> There are 2 different chips (w25q256fv and w25q256jv) that share
>> the same JEDEC ID. Only w25q256jv fully supports 4-byte opcodes.
>> Use SFDP header version to differentiate between them.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mantas Pucka <mantas@8devices.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c    |  4 ----
>>   drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h    |  6 ++++++
>>   drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>   3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
>> index f6038d3..27838f6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
>> @@ -21,10 +21,6 @@
>>   #define SFDP_4BAIT_ID          0xff84  /* 4-byte Address Instruction Table
>> */
>>
>>   #define SFDP_SIGNATURE         0x50444653U
>> -#define SFDP_JESD216_MAJOR     1
>> -#define SFDP_JESD216_MINOR     0
>> -#define SFDP_JESD216A_MINOR    5
>> -#define SFDP_JESD216B_MINOR    6
>>
>>   struct sfdp_header {
>>          u32             signature; /* Ox50444653U <=> "SFDP" */
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
>> index e0a8ded..b84abd0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
>> @@ -7,6 +7,12 @@
>>   #ifndef __LINUX_MTD_SFDP_H
>>   #define __LINUX_MTD_SFDP_H
>>
>> +/* SFDP revisions */
>> +#define SFDP_JESD216_MAJOR     1
>> +#define SFDP_JESD216_MINOR     0
>> +#define SFDP_JESD216A_MINOR    5
>> +#define SFDP_JESD216B_MINOR    6
>> +
>>   /* Basic Flash Parameter Table */
>>
>>   /*
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
>> index 17deaba..50b2478 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
>> @@ -8,6 +8,32 @@
>>
>>   #include "core.h"
>>
>> +static int
>> +w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups(struct spi_nor *nor,
>> +                        const struct sfdp_parameter_header *bfpt_header,
>> +                        const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt,
>> +                        struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params)
>> +{
>> +       /*
>> +        * W25Q256JV supports 4B opcodes but W25Q256FV does not.
>> +        * Unfortunately, Winbond has re-used the same JEDEC ID for both
>> +        * variants which prevents us from defining a new entry in the parts
>> +        * table.
>> +        * To differentiate between W25Q256JV and W25Q256FV check SFDP
>> header +        * version: only JV has JESD216A compliant structure
>> (version 5) +        */
>> +
>> +       if (bfpt_header->major == SFDP_JESD216_MAJOR &&
>> +           bfpt_header->minor == SFDP_JESD216A_MINOR)
> 
> Not sure if this is generic enough. Are you sure that the JV version will
> never have an update for the sfdp tables?
> 

No, I'm not sure. I also don't know about other changes that may come 
with a version update: will it have 4B opcode table? will it be 
different version again (say KV) with it's own quirks? Fix only what 
needs fixing was the idea. But I guess chances of new chip with no 4B 
opcodes and new SFDP table are pretty slim, so I'm OK with having >= in v2.

>> +               nor->flags |= SNOR_F_4B_OPCODES;
>> +
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct spi_nor_fixups w25q256_fixups = {
>> +       .post_bfpt = w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups,
>> +};
>> +
> 
> If the post_bfpt hook is called, you already have a valid bfpt table. If the
> differentiator between the JV and FV versions is that only the JV defines the
> SFDP tables, then your w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups() can look as:
> 
> static int w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups()
> {
> 	nor->flags |= SNOR_F_4B_OPCODES;
> 	return 0;
> }

FV chip that I have, do actually have SFDP tables (with 
minor_version==0). I've saw Chuanhong reporting that some FV chips don't 
have SFDP, but certainly this is not the case for all of them.


Best regards,
Mantas

Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: fix 4-byte opcode support for w25q256

[Tudor.Ambarus]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:08:30 AM EEST Mantas wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> content is safe
> On 2020-04-20 13:53, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 4:48:30 PM EEST Mantas Pucka wrote:
> >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
> >> the
> >> content is safe
> >> 
> >> There are 2 different chips (w25q256fv and w25q256jv) that share
> >> the same JEDEC ID. Only w25q256jv fully supports 4-byte opcodes.
> >> Use SFDP header version to differentiate between them.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Mantas Pucka <mantas@8devices.com>
> >> ---
> >> 
> >>   drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c    |  4 ----
> >>   drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h    |  6 ++++++
> >>   drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>   3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
> >> index f6038d3..27838f6 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
> >> @@ -21,10 +21,6 @@
> >> 
> >>   #define SFDP_4BAIT_ID          0xff84  /* 4-byte Address Instruction
> >>   Table
> >> 
> >> */
> >> 
> >>   #define SFDP_SIGNATURE         0x50444653U
> >> 
> >> -#define SFDP_JESD216_MAJOR     1
> >> -#define SFDP_JESD216_MINOR     0
> >> -#define SFDP_JESD216A_MINOR    5
> >> -#define SFDP_JESD216B_MINOR    6
> >> 
> >>   struct sfdp_header {
> >>   
> >>          u32             signature; /* Ox50444653U <=> "SFDP" */
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
> >> index e0a8ded..b84abd0 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
> >> @@ -7,6 +7,12 @@
> >> 
> >>   #ifndef __LINUX_MTD_SFDP_H
> >>   #define __LINUX_MTD_SFDP_H
> >> 
> >> +/* SFDP revisions */
> >> +#define SFDP_JESD216_MAJOR     1
> >> +#define SFDP_JESD216_MINOR     0
> >> +#define SFDP_JESD216A_MINOR    5
> >> +#define SFDP_JESD216B_MINOR    6
> >> +
> >> 
> >>   /* Basic Flash Parameter Table */
> >>   
> >>   /*
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
> >> b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
> >> index 17deaba..50b2478 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
> >> @@ -8,6 +8,32 @@
> >> 
> >>   #include "core.h"
> >> 
> >> +static int
> >> +w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups(struct spi_nor *nor,
> >> +                        const struct sfdp_parameter_header *bfpt_header,
> >> +                        const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt,
> >> +                        struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params)
> >> +{
> >> +       /*
> >> +        * W25Q256JV supports 4B opcodes but W25Q256FV does not.
> >> +        * Unfortunately, Winbond has re-used the same JEDEC ID for both
> >> +        * variants which prevents us from defining a new entry in the
> >> parts +        * table.
> >> +        * To differentiate between W25Q256JV and W25Q256FV check SFDP
> >> header +        * version: only JV has JESD216A compliant structure
> >> (version 5) +        */
> >> +
> >> +       if (bfpt_header->major == SFDP_JESD216_MAJOR &&
> >> +           bfpt_header->minor == SFDP_JESD216A_MINOR)
> > 
> > Not sure if this is generic enough. Are you sure that the JV version will
> > never have an update for the sfdp tables?
> 
> No, I'm not sure. I also don't know about other changes that may come
> with a version update: will it have 4B opcode table? will it be

new 4bait table will just OR the SNOR_F_4B_OPCODES flags, no problem with 
that.

> different version again (say KV) with it's own quirks? Fix only what
> needs fixing was the idea. But I guess chances of new chip with no 4B
> opcodes and new SFDP table are pretty slim, so I'm OK with having >= in v2.

stripping 4B opcodes from a revision to another would be a first, but you're 
right, we can fix others when needed, so no need for a v2.
> 
> >> +               nor->flags |= SNOR_F_4B_OPCODES;
> >> +
> >> +       return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static struct spi_nor_fixups w25q256_fixups = {
> >> +       .post_bfpt = w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups,
> >> +};
> >> +
> > 
> > If the post_bfpt hook is called, you already have a valid bfpt table. If
> > the differentiator between the JV and FV versions is that only the JV
> > defines the SFDP tables, then your w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups() can look
> > as:
> > 
> > static int w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups()
> > {
> > 
> >       nor->flags |= SNOR_F_4B_OPCODES;
> >       return 0;
> > 
> > }
> 
> FV chip that I have, do actually have SFDP tables (with
> minor_version==0). I've saw Chuanhong reporting that some FV chips don't
> have SFDP, but certainly this is not the case for all of them.
> 
oh, the horror :). I think I have a w25q256 somewhere, allow me some time to 
do some tests.

Cheers,
ta

Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: fix 4-byte opcode support for w25q256

[Tudor.Ambarus]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 4:48:30 PM EEST Mantas Pucka wrote:
> There are 2 different chips (w25q256fv and w25q256jv) that share
> the same JEDEC ID. Only w25q256jv fully supports 4-byte opcodes.
> Use SFDP header version to differentiate between them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mantas Pucka <mantas@8devices.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c    |  4 ----
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h    |  6 ++++++
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Added Fixes tag, plus other minor cosmetic changes. Applied, thanks.