[PATCH v2 0/5] mtd: spi-nor: Cleanup patches

[PATCH v2 0/5] mtd: spi-nor: Cleanup patches

[Tudor Ambarus]

Various cleanup patches done while reviewing contributions.

Tudor Ambarus (5):
  mtd: spi-nor: core: Advance erase after the erase cmd has been
    completed
  mtd: spi-nor: core: Add vdbg msg for spi_nor_erase_multi_sectors()
  mtd: spi-nor: Get rid of duplicated argument in spi_nor_parse_sfdp()
  mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core
  mtd: spi-nor: swp: Drop 'else' after 'return'

 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile   |   2 +-
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c     | 432 ++-------------------------------
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h     |  10 +-
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/issi.c     |   3 +-
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/macronix.c |   3 +-
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c     |  72 +++---
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h     |   3 +-
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spansion.c |  12 +-
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c      | 419 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c  |   3 +-
 10 files changed, 479 insertions(+), 480 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c

-- 
2.25.1

[PATCH v2 1/5] mtd: spi-nor: core: Advance erase after the erase cmd has been completed

[Tudor Ambarus]

addr and len were gratuitously updated even when spi_nor_wait_till_ready()
failed. Wait for the erase cmd to complete and then advance the erase.

Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com>
---
v2:
- update commit message
- Add R-b tag

 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
index 0522304f52fa..bcaa161bc7db 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
@@ -1618,12 +1618,12 @@ static int spi_nor_erase_multi_sectors(struct spi_nor *nor, u64 addr, u32 len)
 			if (ret)
 				goto destroy_erase_cmd_list;
 
-			addr += cmd->size;
-			cmd->count--;
-
 			ret = spi_nor_wait_till_ready(nor);
 			if (ret)
 				goto destroy_erase_cmd_list;
+
+			addr += cmd->size;
+			cmd->count--;
 		}
 		list_del(&cmd->list);
 		kfree(cmd);
@@ -1704,12 +1704,12 @@ static int spi_nor_erase(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct erase_info *instr)
 			if (ret)
 				goto erase_err;
 
-			addr += mtd->erasesize;
-			len -= mtd->erasesize;
-
 			ret = spi_nor_wait_till_ready(nor);
 			if (ret)
 				goto erase_err;
+
+			addr += mtd->erasesize;
+			len -= mtd->erasesize;
 		}
 
 	/* erase multiple sectors */
-- 
2.25.1

[PATCH v2 2/5] mtd: spi-nor: core: Add vdbg msg for spi_nor_erase_multi_sectors()

[Tudor Ambarus]

Useful when debugging non-uniform erase.

Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
---
v2: 
- s/dev_dbg/dev_vdb
- move vdbg message the first thing in the while

 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
index bcaa161bc7db..498da1ec3a89 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
@@ -1610,6 +1610,9 @@ static int spi_nor_erase_multi_sectors(struct spi_nor *nor, u64 addr, u32 len)
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(cmd, next, &erase_list, list) {
 		nor->erase_opcode = cmd->opcode;
 		while (cmd->count) {
+			dev_vdbg(nor->dev, "erase_cmd->size = 0x%08x, erase_cmd->opcode = 0x%02x, erase_cmd->count = %d\n",
+				 cmd->size, cmd->opcode, cmd->count);
+
 			ret = spi_nor_write_enable(nor);
 			if (ret)
 				goto destroy_erase_cmd_list;
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mtd: spi-nor: core: Add vdbg msg for spi_nor_erase_multi_sectors()

[Pratyush Yadav]

On 06/03/21 11:49AM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> Useful when debugging non-uniform erase.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
> ---
> v2: 
> - s/dev_dbg/dev_vdb
> - move vdbg message the first thing in the while
> 
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> index bcaa161bc7db..498da1ec3a89 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> @@ -1610,6 +1610,9 @@ static int spi_nor_erase_multi_sectors(struct spi_nor *nor, u64 addr, u32 len)
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(cmd, next, &erase_list, list) {
>  		nor->erase_opcode = cmd->opcode;
>  		while (cmd->count) {
> +			dev_vdbg(nor->dev, "erase_cmd->size = 0x%08x, erase_cmd->opcode = 0x%02x, erase_cmd->count = %d\n",

erase_cmd->count is an unsigned value (u32) so it should be %u instead 
of %d.

Other than this,

Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com>

> +				 cmd->size, cmd->opcode, cmd->count);
> +
>  			ret = spi_nor_write_enable(nor);
>  			if (ret)
>  				goto destroy_erase_cmd_list;
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
Texas Instruments Inc.

[PATCH v2 3/5] mtd: spi-nor: Get rid of duplicated argument in spi_nor_parse_sfdp()

[Tudor Ambarus]

spi_nor_parse_sfdp(nor, nor->params);
passes for the second argument a member within the first argument.
Drop the second argument and obtain it directly from the first,
and do it across all the children functions. This is a follow up for
'commit 69a8eed58cc0 ("mtd: spi-nor: Don't copy self-pointing struct around")'

Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
---
v2: Add params local variable in spi_nor_parse_4bait(), because
params is used in multiple locations.

 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c     | 10 ++---
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h     |  6 +--
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/issi.c     |  3 +-
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/macronix.c |  3 +-
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c     | 72 +++++++++++++---------------------
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h     |  3 +-
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spansion.c | 12 +++---
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c  |  3 +-
 8 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
index 498da1ec3a89..d12f14aba957 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
@@ -2629,22 +2629,20 @@ void spi_nor_init_uniform_erase_map(struct spi_nor_erase_map *map,
 
 int spi_nor_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)
+			     const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt)
 {
 	int ret;
 
 	if (nor->manufacturer && nor->manufacturer->fixups &&
 	    nor->manufacturer->fixups->post_bfpt) {
 		ret = nor->manufacturer->fixups->post_bfpt(nor, bfpt_header,
-							   bfpt, params);
+							   bfpt);
 		if (ret)
 			return ret;
 	}
 
 	if (nor->info->fixups && nor->info->fixups->post_bfpt)
-		return nor->info->fixups->post_bfpt(nor, bfpt_header, bfpt,
-						    params);
+		return nor->info->fixups->post_bfpt(nor, bfpt_header, bfpt);
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -2899,7 +2897,7 @@ static void spi_nor_sfdp_init_params(struct spi_nor *nor)
 
 	memcpy(&sfdp_params, nor->params, sizeof(sfdp_params));
 
-	if (spi_nor_parse_sfdp(nor, nor->params)) {
+	if (spi_nor_parse_sfdp(nor)) {
 		memcpy(nor->params, &sfdp_params, sizeof(*nor->params));
 		nor->addr_width = 0;
 		nor->flags &= ~SNOR_F_4B_OPCODES;
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h
index 4a3f7f150b5d..db07832ee66c 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h
@@ -261,8 +261,7 @@ struct spi_nor_fixups {
 	void (*default_init)(struct spi_nor *nor);
 	int (*post_bfpt)(struct spi_nor *nor,
 			 const struct sfdp_parameter_header *bfpt_header,
-			 const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt,
-			 struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params);
+			 const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt);
 	void (*post_sfdp)(struct spi_nor *nor);
 };
 
@@ -470,8 +469,7 @@ void spi_nor_init_uniform_erase_map(struct spi_nor_erase_map *map,
 
 int spi_nor_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);
+			     const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt);
 
 static struct spi_nor __maybe_unused *mtd_to_spi_nor(struct mtd_info *mtd)
 {
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/issi.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/issi.c
index ffcb60e54a80..1e5bb5408b68 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/issi.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/issi.c
@@ -11,8 +11,7 @@
 static int
 is25lp256_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)
+			   const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt)
 {
 	/*
 	 * IS25LP256 supports 4B opcodes, but the BFPT advertises a
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/macronix.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/macronix.c
index 9203abaac229..6c2680b4cdad 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/macronix.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/macronix.c
@@ -11,8 +11,7 @@
 static int
 mx25l25635_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)
+			    const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt)
 {
 	/*
 	 * MX25L25635F supports 4B opcodes but MX25L25635E does not.
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
index 25142ec4737b..23c28e91f698 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
@@ -405,8 +405,6 @@ static void spi_nor_regions_sort_erase_types(struct spi_nor_erase_map *map)
  * @nor:		pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'
  * @bfpt_header:	pointer to the 'struct sfdp_parameter_header' describing
  *			the Basic Flash Parameter Table length and version
- * @params:		pointer to the 'struct spi_nor_flash_parameter' to be
- *			filled
  *
  * The Basic Flash Parameter Table is the main and only mandatory table as
  * defined by the SFDP (JESD216) specification.
@@ -431,9 +429,9 @@ static void spi_nor_regions_sort_erase_types(struct spi_nor_erase_map *map)
  * Return: 0 on success, -errno otherwise.
  */
 static int spi_nor_parse_bfpt(struct spi_nor *nor,
-			      const struct sfdp_parameter_header *bfpt_header,
-			      struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params)
+			      const struct sfdp_parameter_header *bfpt_header)
 {
+	struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params = nor->params;
 	struct spi_nor_erase_map *map = &params->erase_map;
 	struct spi_nor_erase_type *erase_type = map->erase_type;
 	struct sfdp_bfpt bfpt;
@@ -552,8 +550,7 @@ static int spi_nor_parse_bfpt(struct spi_nor *nor,
 
 	/* Stop here if not JESD216 rev A or later. */
 	if (bfpt_header->length == BFPT_DWORD_MAX_JESD216)
-		return spi_nor_post_bfpt_fixups(nor, bfpt_header, &bfpt,
-						params);
+		return spi_nor_post_bfpt_fixups(nor, bfpt_header, &bfpt);
 
 	/* Page size: this field specifies 'N' so the page size = 2^N bytes. */
 	val = bfpt.dwords[BFPT_DWORD(11)];
@@ -614,8 +611,8 @@ static int spi_nor_parse_bfpt(struct spi_nor *nor,
 
 	/* Stop here if not JESD216 rev C or later. */
 	if (bfpt_header->length == BFPT_DWORD_MAX_JESD216B)
-		return spi_nor_post_bfpt_fixups(nor, bfpt_header, &bfpt,
-						params);
+		return spi_nor_post_bfpt_fixups(nor, bfpt_header, &bfpt);
+
 	/* 8D-8D-8D command extension. */
 	switch (bfpt.dwords[BFPT_DWORD(18)] & BFPT_DWORD18_CMD_EXT_MASK) {
 	case BFPT_DWORD18_CMD_EXT_REP:
@@ -635,7 +632,7 @@ static int spi_nor_parse_bfpt(struct spi_nor *nor,
 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
 	}
 
-	return spi_nor_post_bfpt_fixups(nor, bfpt_header, &bfpt, params);
+	return spi_nor_post_bfpt_fixups(nor, bfpt_header, &bfpt);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -800,18 +797,14 @@ spi_nor_region_check_overlay(struct spi_nor_erase_region *region,
 /**
  * spi_nor_init_non_uniform_erase_map() - initialize the non-uniform erase map
  * @nor:	pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'
- * @params:     pointer to a duplicate 'struct spi_nor_flash_parameter' that is
- *              used for storing SFDP parsed data
  * @smpt:	pointer to the sector map parameter table
  *
  * Return: 0 on success, -errno otherwise.
  */
-static int
-spi_nor_init_non_uniform_erase_map(struct spi_nor *nor,
-				   struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params,
-				   const u32 *smpt)
+static int spi_nor_init_non_uniform_erase_map(struct spi_nor *nor,
+					      const u32 *smpt)
 {
-	struct spi_nor_erase_map *map = &params->erase_map;
+	struct spi_nor_erase_map *map = &nor->params->erase_map;
 	struct spi_nor_erase_type *erase = map->erase_type;
 	struct spi_nor_erase_region *region;
 	u64 offset;
@@ -889,8 +882,6 @@ spi_nor_init_non_uniform_erase_map(struct spi_nor *nor,
  * spi_nor_parse_smpt() - parse Sector Map Parameter Table
  * @nor:		pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'
  * @smpt_header:	sector map parameter table header
- * @params:		pointer to a duplicate 'struct spi_nor_flash_parameter'
- *                      that is used for storing SFDP parsed data
  *
  * This table is optional, but when available, we parse it to identify the
  * location and size of sectors within the main data array of the flash memory
@@ -899,8 +890,7 @@ spi_nor_init_non_uniform_erase_map(struct spi_nor *nor,
  * Return: 0 on success, -errno otherwise.
  */
 static int spi_nor_parse_smpt(struct spi_nor *nor,
-			      const struct sfdp_parameter_header *smpt_header,
-			      struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params)
+			      const struct sfdp_parameter_header *smpt_header)
 {
 	const u32 *sector_map;
 	u32 *smpt;
@@ -928,11 +918,11 @@ static int spi_nor_parse_smpt(struct spi_nor *nor,
 		goto out;
 	}
 
-	ret = spi_nor_init_non_uniform_erase_map(nor, params, sector_map);
+	ret = spi_nor_init_non_uniform_erase_map(nor, sector_map);
 	if (ret)
 		goto out;
 
-	spi_nor_regions_sort_erase_types(&params->erase_map);
+	spi_nor_regions_sort_erase_types(&nor->params->erase_map);
 	/* fall through */
 out:
 	kfree(smpt);
@@ -944,13 +934,11 @@ static int spi_nor_parse_smpt(struct spi_nor *nor,
  * @nor:		pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'.
  * @param_header:	pointer to the 'struct sfdp_parameter_header' describing
  *			the 4-Byte Address Instruction Table length and version.
- * @params:		pointer to the 'struct spi_nor_flash_parameter' to be.
  *
  * Return: 0 on success, -errno otherwise.
  */
 static int spi_nor_parse_4bait(struct spi_nor *nor,
-			       const struct sfdp_parameter_header *param_header,
-			       struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params)
+			       const struct sfdp_parameter_header *param_header)
 {
 	static const struct sfdp_4bait reads[] = {
 		{ SNOR_HWCAPS_READ,		BIT(0) },
@@ -974,6 +962,7 @@ static int spi_nor_parse_4bait(struct spi_nor *nor,
 		{ 0u /* not used */,		BIT(11) },
 		{ 0u /* not used */,		BIT(12) },
 	};
+	struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params = nor->params;
 	struct spi_nor_pp_command *params_pp = params->page_programs;
 	struct spi_nor_erase_map *map = &params->erase_map;
 	struct spi_nor_erase_type *erase_type = map->erase_type;
@@ -1130,13 +1119,11 @@ static int spi_nor_parse_4bait(struct spi_nor *nor,
  * @nor:		pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'
  * @profile1_header:	pointer to the 'struct sfdp_parameter_header' describing
  *			the Profile 1.0 Table length and version.
- * @params:		pointer to the 'struct spi_nor_flash_parameter' to be.
  *
  * Return: 0 on success, -errno otherwise.
  */
 static int spi_nor_parse_profile1(struct spi_nor *nor,
-				  const struct sfdp_parameter_header *profile1_header,
-				  struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params)
+				  const struct sfdp_parameter_header *profile1_header)
 {
 	u32 *dwords, addr;
 	size_t len;
@@ -1160,14 +1147,14 @@ static int spi_nor_parse_profile1(struct spi_nor *nor,
 
 	 /* Set the Read Status Register dummy cycles and dummy address bytes. */
 	if (dwords[0] & PROFILE1_DWORD1_RDSR_DUMMY)
-		params->rdsr_dummy = 8;
+		nor->params->rdsr_dummy = 8;
 	else
-		params->rdsr_dummy = 4;
+		nor->params->rdsr_dummy = 4;
 
 	if (dwords[0] & PROFILE1_DWORD1_RDSR_ADDR_BYTES)
-		params->rdsr_addr_nbytes = 4;
+		nor->params->rdsr_addr_nbytes = 4;
 	else
-		params->rdsr_addr_nbytes = 0;
+		nor->params->rdsr_addr_nbytes = 0;
 
 	/*
 	 * We don't know what speed the controller is running at. Find the
@@ -1193,7 +1180,7 @@ static int spi_nor_parse_profile1(struct spi_nor *nor,
 	dummy = round_up(dummy, 2);
 
 	/* Update the fast read settings. */
-	spi_nor_set_read_settings(&params->reads[SNOR_CMD_READ_8_8_8_DTR],
+	spi_nor_set_read_settings(&nor->params->reads[SNOR_CMD_READ_8_8_8_DTR],
 				  0, dummy, opcode,
 				  SNOR_PROTO_8_8_8_DTR);
 
@@ -1210,13 +1197,11 @@ static int spi_nor_parse_profile1(struct spi_nor *nor,
  * @nor:		pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'
  * @sccr_header:	pointer to the 'struct sfdp_parameter_header' describing
  *			the SCCR Map table length and version.
- * @params:		pointer to the 'struct spi_nor_flash_parameter' to be.
  *
  * Return: 0 on success, -errno otherwise.
  */
 static int spi_nor_parse_sccr(struct spi_nor *nor,
-			      const struct sfdp_parameter_header *sccr_header,
-			      struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params)
+			      const struct sfdp_parameter_header *sccr_header)
 {
 	u32 *dwords, addr;
 	size_t len;
@@ -1245,8 +1230,6 @@ static int spi_nor_parse_sccr(struct spi_nor *nor,
 /**
  * spi_nor_parse_sfdp() - parse the Serial Flash Discoverable Parameters.
  * @nor:		pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'
- * @params:		pointer to the 'struct spi_nor_flash_parameter' to be
- *			filled
  *
  * The Serial Flash Discoverable Parameters are described by the JEDEC JESD216
  * specification. This is a standard which tends to supported by almost all
@@ -1256,8 +1239,7 @@ static int spi_nor_parse_sccr(struct spi_nor *nor,
  *
  * Return: 0 on success, -errno otherwise.
  */
-int spi_nor_parse_sfdp(struct spi_nor *nor,
-		       struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params)
+int spi_nor_parse_sfdp(struct spi_nor *nor)
 {
 	const struct sfdp_parameter_header *param_header, *bfpt_header;
 	struct sfdp_parameter_header *param_headers = NULL;
@@ -1326,7 +1308,7 @@ int spi_nor_parse_sfdp(struct spi_nor *nor,
 			bfpt_header = param_header;
 	}
 
-	err = spi_nor_parse_bfpt(nor, bfpt_header, params);
+	err = spi_nor_parse_bfpt(nor, bfpt_header);
 	if (err)
 		goto exit;
 
@@ -1336,19 +1318,19 @@ int spi_nor_parse_sfdp(struct spi_nor *nor,
 
 		switch (SFDP_PARAM_HEADER_ID(param_header)) {
 		case SFDP_SECTOR_MAP_ID:
-			err = spi_nor_parse_smpt(nor, param_header, params);
+			err = spi_nor_parse_smpt(nor, param_header);
 			break;
 
 		case SFDP_4BAIT_ID:
-			err = spi_nor_parse_4bait(nor, param_header, params);
+			err = spi_nor_parse_4bait(nor, param_header);
 			break;
 
 		case SFDP_PROFILE1_ID:
-			err = spi_nor_parse_profile1(nor, param_header, params);
+			err = spi_nor_parse_profile1(nor, param_header);
 			break;
 
 		case SFDP_SCCR_MAP_ID:
-			err = spi_nor_parse_sccr(nor, param_header, params);
+			err = spi_nor_parse_sccr(nor, param_header);
 			break;
 
 		default:
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
index 89152ae1cf3e..bbf80d2990ab 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
@@ -107,7 +107,6 @@ struct sfdp_parameter_header {
 	u8		id_msb;
 };
 
-int spi_nor_parse_sfdp(struct spi_nor *nor,
-		       struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params);
+int spi_nor_parse_sfdp(struct spi_nor *nor);
 
 #endif /* __LINUX_MTD_SFDP_H */
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spansion.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spansion.c
index b0c5521c1e27..ee82dcd75310 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spansion.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spansion.c
@@ -142,8 +142,7 @@ static void s28hs512t_post_sfdp_fixup(struct spi_nor *nor)
 
 static int s28hs512t_post_bfpt_fixup(struct spi_nor *nor,
 				     const struct sfdp_parameter_header *bfpt_header,
-				     const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt,
-				     struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params)
+				     const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt)
 {
 	/*
 	 * The BFPT table advertises a 512B page size but the page size is
@@ -162,9 +161,9 @@ static int s28hs512t_post_bfpt_fixup(struct spi_nor *nor,
 		return ret;
 
 	if (nor->bouncebuf[0] & SPINOR_REG_CYPRESS_CFR3V_PGSZ)
-		params->page_size = 512;
+		nor->params->page_size = 512;
 	else
-		params->page_size = 256;
+		nor->params->page_size = 256;
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -178,8 +177,7 @@ static struct spi_nor_fixups s28hs512t_fixups = {
 static int
 s25fs_s_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)
+			 const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt)
 {
 	/*
 	 * The S25FS-S chip family reports 512-byte pages in BFPT but
@@ -187,7 +185,7 @@ s25fs_s_post_bfpt_fixups(struct spi_nor *nor,
 	 * of 256 bytes.  Overwrite the page size advertised by BFPT
 	 * to get the writes working.
 	 */
-	params->page_size = 256;
+	nor->params->page_size = 256;
 
 	return 0;
 }
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
index e5dfa786f190..5d5240fb9a32 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
@@ -11,8 +11,7 @@
 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)
+			 const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt)
 {
 	/*
 	 * W25Q256JV supports 4B opcodes but W25Q256FV does not.
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] mtd: spi-nor: Get rid of duplicated argument in spi_nor_parse_sfdp()

[Pratyush Yadav]

On 06/03/21 11:50AM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> spi_nor_parse_sfdp(nor, nor->params);
> passes for the second argument a member within the first argument.
> Drop the second argument and obtain it directly from the first,
> and do it across all the children functions. This is a follow up for
> 'commit 69a8eed58cc0 ("mtd: spi-nor: Don't copy self-pointing struct around")'
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>

Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com>

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
Texas Instruments Inc.

[PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

[Tudor Ambarus]

It makes the core file a bit smaller and provides better separation
between the Software Write Protection features and the core logic.
All the next generic software write protection features (e.g. Individual
Block Protection) will reside in swp.c.

Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
---
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile |   2 +-
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c   | 407 +---------------------------------
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h   |   4 +
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c    | 419 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 428 insertions(+), 404 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile
index 653923896205..da05b03f28d2 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 
-spi-nor-objs			:= core.o sfdp.o
+spi-nor-objs			:= core.o sfdp.o swp.o
 spi-nor-objs			+= atmel.o
 spi-nor-objs			+= catalyst.o
 spi-nor-objs			+= eon.o
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
index d12f14aba957..08c9cfd9bcde 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
@@ -1730,376 +1730,6 @@ static int spi_nor_erase(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct erase_info *instr)
 	return ret;
 }
 
-static u8 spi_nor_get_sr_bp_mask(struct spi_nor *nor)
-{
-	u8 mask = SR_BP2 | SR_BP1 | SR_BP0;
-
-	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_BP3_BIT6)
-		return mask | SR_BP3_BIT6;
-
-	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_4BIT_BP)
-		return mask | SR_BP3;
-
-	return mask;
-}
-
-static u8 spi_nor_get_sr_tb_mask(struct spi_nor *nor)
-{
-	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_TB_BIT6)
-		return SR_TB_BIT6;
-	else
-		return SR_TB_BIT5;
-}
-
-static u64 spi_nor_get_min_prot_length_sr(struct spi_nor *nor)
-{
-	unsigned int bp_slots, bp_slots_needed;
-	u8 mask = spi_nor_get_sr_bp_mask(nor);
-
-	/* Reserved one for "protect none" and one for "protect all". */
-	bp_slots = (1 << hweight8(mask)) - 2;
-	bp_slots_needed = ilog2(nor->info->n_sectors);
-
-	if (bp_slots_needed > bp_slots)
-		return nor->info->sector_size <<
-			(bp_slots_needed - bp_slots);
-	else
-		return nor->info->sector_size;
-}
-
-static void spi_nor_get_locked_range_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, u8 sr, loff_t *ofs,
-					uint64_t *len)
-{
-	struct mtd_info *mtd = &nor->mtd;
-	u64 min_prot_len;
-	u8 mask = spi_nor_get_sr_bp_mask(nor);
-	u8 tb_mask = spi_nor_get_sr_tb_mask(nor);
-	u8 bp, val = sr & mask;
-
-	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_BP3_BIT6 && val & SR_BP3_BIT6)
-		val = (val & ~SR_BP3_BIT6) | SR_BP3;
-
-	bp = val >> SR_BP_SHIFT;
-
-	if (!bp) {
-		/* No protection */
-		*ofs = 0;
-		*len = 0;
-		return;
-	}
-
-	min_prot_len = spi_nor_get_min_prot_length_sr(nor);
-	*len = min_prot_len << (bp - 1);
-
-	if (*len > mtd->size)
-		*len = mtd->size;
-
-	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_TB && sr & tb_mask)
-		*ofs = 0;
-	else
-		*ofs = mtd->size - *len;
-}
-
-/*
- * Return 1 if the entire region is locked (if @locked is true) or unlocked (if
- * @locked is false); 0 otherwise
- */
-static int spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs,
-					uint64_t len, u8 sr, bool locked)
-{
-	loff_t lock_offs;
-	uint64_t lock_len;
-
-	if (!len)
-		return 1;
-
-	spi_nor_get_locked_range_sr(nor, sr, &lock_offs, &lock_len);
-
-	if (locked)
-		/* Requested range is a sub-range of locked range */
-		return (ofs + len <= lock_offs + lock_len) && (ofs >= lock_offs);
-	else
-		/* Requested range does not overlap with locked range */
-		return (ofs >= lock_offs + lock_len) || (ofs + len <= lock_offs);
-}
-
-static int spi_nor_is_locked_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len,
-				u8 sr)
-{
-	return spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(nor, ofs, len, sr, true);
-}
-
-static int spi_nor_is_unlocked_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len,
-				  u8 sr)
-{
-	return spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(nor, ofs, len, sr, false);
-}
-
-/*
- * Lock a region of the flash. Compatible with ST Micro and similar flash.
- * Supports the block protection bits BP{0,1,2}/BP{0,1,2,3} in the status
- * register
- * (SR). Does not support these features found in newer SR bitfields:
- *   - SEC: sector/block protect - only handle SEC=0 (block protect)
- *   - CMP: complement protect - only support CMP=0 (range is not complemented)
- *
- * Support for the following is provided conditionally for some flash:
- *   - TB: top/bottom protect
- *
- * Sample table portion for 8MB flash (Winbond w25q64fw):
- *
- *   SEC  |  TB   |  BP2  |  BP1  |  BP0  |  Prot Length  | Protected Portion
- *  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
- *    X   |   X   |   0   |   0   |   0   |  NONE         | NONE
- *    0   |   0   |   0   |   0   |   1   |  128 KB       | Upper 1/64
- *    0   |   0   |   0   |   1   |   0   |  256 KB       | Upper 1/32
- *    0   |   0   |   0   |   1   |   1   |  512 KB       | Upper 1/16
- *    0   |   0   |   1   |   0   |   0   |  1 MB         | Upper 1/8
- *    0   |   0   |   1   |   0   |   1   |  2 MB         | Upper 1/4
- *    0   |   0   |   1   |   1   |   0   |  4 MB         | Upper 1/2
- *    X   |   X   |   1   |   1   |   1   |  8 MB         | ALL
- *  ------|-------|-------|-------|-------|---------------|-------------------
- *    0   |   1   |   0   |   0   |   1   |  128 KB       | Lower 1/64
- *    0   |   1   |   0   |   1   |   0   |  256 KB       | Lower 1/32
- *    0   |   1   |   0   |   1   |   1   |  512 KB       | Lower 1/16
- *    0   |   1   |   1   |   0   |   0   |  1 MB         | Lower 1/8
- *    0   |   1   |   1   |   0   |   1   |  2 MB         | Lower 1/4
- *    0   |   1   |   1   |   1   |   0   |  4 MB         | Lower 1/2
- *
- * Returns negative on errors, 0 on success.
- */
-static int spi_nor_sr_lock(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
-{
-	struct mtd_info *mtd = &nor->mtd;
-	u64 min_prot_len;
-	int ret, status_old, status_new;
-	u8 mask = spi_nor_get_sr_bp_mask(nor);
-	u8 tb_mask = spi_nor_get_sr_tb_mask(nor);
-	u8 pow, val;
-	loff_t lock_len;
-	bool can_be_top = true, can_be_bottom = nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_TB;
-	bool use_top;
-
-	ret = spi_nor_read_sr(nor, nor->bouncebuf);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
-
-	status_old = nor->bouncebuf[0];
-
-	/* If nothing in our range is unlocked, we don't need to do anything */
-	if (spi_nor_is_locked_sr(nor, ofs, len, status_old))
-		return 0;
-
-	/* If anything below us is unlocked, we can't use 'bottom' protection */
-	if (!spi_nor_is_locked_sr(nor, 0, ofs, status_old))
-		can_be_bottom = false;
-
-	/* If anything above us is unlocked, we can't use 'top' protection */
-	if (!spi_nor_is_locked_sr(nor, ofs + len, mtd->size - (ofs + len),
-				  status_old))
-		can_be_top = false;
-
-	if (!can_be_bottom && !can_be_top)
-		return -EINVAL;
-
-	/* Prefer top, if both are valid */
-	use_top = can_be_top;
-
-	/* lock_len: length of region that should end up locked */
-	if (use_top)
-		lock_len = mtd->size - ofs;
-	else
-		lock_len = ofs + len;
-
-	if (lock_len == mtd->size) {
-		val = mask;
-	} else {
-		min_prot_len = spi_nor_get_min_prot_length_sr(nor);
-		pow = ilog2(lock_len) - ilog2(min_prot_len) + 1;
-		val = pow << SR_BP_SHIFT;
-
-		if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_BP3_BIT6 && val & SR_BP3)
-			val = (val & ~SR_BP3) | SR_BP3_BIT6;
-
-		if (val & ~mask)
-			return -EINVAL;
-
-		/* Don't "lock" with no region! */
-		if (!(val & mask))
-			return -EINVAL;
-	}
-
-	status_new = (status_old & ~mask & ~tb_mask) | val;
-
-	/* Disallow further writes if WP pin is asserted */
-	status_new |= SR_SRWD;
-
-	if (!use_top)
-		status_new |= tb_mask;
-
-	/* Don't bother if they're the same */
-	if (status_new == status_old)
-		return 0;
-
-	/* Only modify protection if it will not unlock other areas */
-	if ((status_new & mask) < (status_old & mask))
-		return -EINVAL;
-
-	return spi_nor_write_sr_and_check(nor, status_new);
-}
-
-/*
- * Unlock a region of the flash. See spi_nor_sr_lock() for more info
- *
- * Returns negative on errors, 0 on success.
- */
-static int spi_nor_sr_unlock(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
-{
-	struct mtd_info *mtd = &nor->mtd;
-	u64 min_prot_len;
-	int ret, status_old, status_new;
-	u8 mask = spi_nor_get_sr_bp_mask(nor);
-	u8 tb_mask = spi_nor_get_sr_tb_mask(nor);
-	u8 pow, val;
-	loff_t lock_len;
-	bool can_be_top = true, can_be_bottom = nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_TB;
-	bool use_top;
-
-	ret = spi_nor_read_sr(nor, nor->bouncebuf);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
-
-	status_old = nor->bouncebuf[0];
-
-	/* If nothing in our range is locked, we don't need to do anything */
-	if (spi_nor_is_unlocked_sr(nor, ofs, len, status_old))
-		return 0;
-
-	/* If anything below us is locked, we can't use 'top' protection */
-	if (!spi_nor_is_unlocked_sr(nor, 0, ofs, status_old))
-		can_be_top = false;
-
-	/* If anything above us is locked, we can't use 'bottom' protection */
-	if (!spi_nor_is_unlocked_sr(nor, ofs + len, mtd->size - (ofs + len),
-				    status_old))
-		can_be_bottom = false;
-
-	if (!can_be_bottom && !can_be_top)
-		return -EINVAL;
-
-	/* Prefer top, if both are valid */
-	use_top = can_be_top;
-
-	/* lock_len: length of region that should remain locked */
-	if (use_top)
-		lock_len = mtd->size - (ofs + len);
-	else
-		lock_len = ofs;
-
-	if (lock_len == 0) {
-		val = 0; /* fully unlocked */
-	} else {
-		min_prot_len = spi_nor_get_min_prot_length_sr(nor);
-		pow = ilog2(lock_len) - ilog2(min_prot_len) + 1;
-		val = pow << SR_BP_SHIFT;
-
-		if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_BP3_BIT6 && val & SR_BP3)
-			val = (val & ~SR_BP3) | SR_BP3_BIT6;
-
-		/* Some power-of-two sizes are not supported */
-		if (val & ~mask)
-			return -EINVAL;
-	}
-
-	status_new = (status_old & ~mask & ~tb_mask) | val;
-
-	/* Don't protect status register if we're fully unlocked */
-	if (lock_len == 0)
-		status_new &= ~SR_SRWD;
-
-	if (!use_top)
-		status_new |= tb_mask;
-
-	/* Don't bother if they're the same */
-	if (status_new == status_old)
-		return 0;
-
-	/* Only modify protection if it will not lock other areas */
-	if ((status_new & mask) > (status_old & mask))
-		return -EINVAL;
-
-	return spi_nor_write_sr_and_check(nor, status_new);
-}
-
-/*
- * Check if a region of the flash is (completely) locked. See spi_nor_sr_lock()
- * for more info.
- *
- * Returns 1 if entire region is locked, 0 if any portion is unlocked, and
- * negative on errors.
- */
-static int spi_nor_sr_is_locked(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
-{
-	int ret;
-
-	ret = spi_nor_read_sr(nor, nor->bouncebuf);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
-
-	return spi_nor_is_locked_sr(nor, ofs, len, nor->bouncebuf[0]);
-}
-
-static const struct spi_nor_locking_ops spi_nor_sr_locking_ops = {
-	.lock = spi_nor_sr_lock,
-	.unlock = spi_nor_sr_unlock,
-	.is_locked = spi_nor_sr_is_locked,
-};
-
-static int spi_nor_lock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
-{
-	struct spi_nor *nor = mtd_to_spi_nor(mtd);
-	int ret;
-
-	ret = spi_nor_lock_and_prep(nor);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
-
-	ret = nor->params->locking_ops->lock(nor, ofs, len);
-
-	spi_nor_unlock_and_unprep(nor);
-	return ret;
-}
-
-static int spi_nor_unlock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
-{
-	struct spi_nor *nor = mtd_to_spi_nor(mtd);
-	int ret;
-
-	ret = spi_nor_lock_and_prep(nor);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
-
-	ret = nor->params->locking_ops->unlock(nor, ofs, len);
-
-	spi_nor_unlock_and_unprep(nor);
-	return ret;
-}
-
-static int spi_nor_is_locked(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
-{
-	struct spi_nor *nor = mtd_to_spi_nor(mtd);
-	int ret;
-
-	ret = spi_nor_lock_and_prep(nor);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
-
-	ret = nor->params->locking_ops->is_locked(nor, ofs, len);
-
-	spi_nor_unlock_and_unprep(nor);
-	return ret;
-}
-
 /**
  * spi_nor_sr1_bit6_quad_enable() - Set the Quad Enable BIT(6) in the Status
  * Register 1.
@@ -3049,7 +2679,7 @@ static void spi_nor_late_init_params(struct spi_nor *nor)
 	 * the default ones.
 	 */
 	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_LOCK && !nor->params->locking_ops)
-		nor->params->locking_ops = &spi_nor_sr_locking_ops;
+		spi_nor_init_default_locking_ops(nor);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -3161,32 +2791,6 @@ static int spi_nor_quad_enable(struct spi_nor *nor)
 	return nor->params->quad_enable(nor);
 }
 
-/**
- * spi_nor_try_unlock_all() - Tries to unlock the entire flash memory array.
- * @nor:	pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'.
- *
- * Some SPI NOR flashes are write protected by default after a power-on reset
- * cycle, in order to avoid inadvertent writes during power-up. Backward
- * compatibility imposes to unlock the entire flash memory array at power-up
- * by default.
- *
- * Unprotecting the entire flash array will fail for boards which are hardware
- * write-protected. Thus any errors are ignored.
- */
-static void spi_nor_try_unlock_all(struct spi_nor *nor)
-{
-	int ret;
-
-	if (!(nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_LOCK))
-		return;
-
-	dev_dbg(nor->dev, "Unprotecting entire flash array\n");
-
-	ret = spi_nor_unlock(&nor->mtd, 0, nor->params->size);
-	if (ret)
-		dev_dbg(nor->dev, "Failed to unlock the entire flash memory array\n");
-}
-
 static int spi_nor_init(struct spi_nor *nor)
 {
 	int err;
@@ -3497,12 +3101,6 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char *name,
 	mtd->_suspend = spi_nor_suspend;
 	mtd->_resume = spi_nor_resume;
 
-	if (nor->params->locking_ops) {
-		mtd->_lock = spi_nor_lock;
-		mtd->_unlock = spi_nor_unlock;
-		mtd->_is_locked = spi_nor_is_locked;
-	}
-
 	if (info->flags & USE_FSR)
 		nor->flags |= SNOR_F_USE_FSR;
 	if (info->flags & SPI_NOR_HAS_TB) {
@@ -3554,6 +3152,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char *name,
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
+	if (nor->params->locking_ops)
+		spi_nor_register_locking_ops(nor);
+
 	/* Send all the required SPI flash commands to initialize device */
 	ret = spi_nor_init(nor);
 	if (ret)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h
index db07832ee66c..74f6026b7335 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h
@@ -471,6 +471,10 @@ int spi_nor_post_bfpt_fixups(struct spi_nor *nor,
 			     const struct sfdp_parameter_header *bfpt_header,
 			     const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt);
 
+void spi_nor_init_default_locking_ops(struct spi_nor *nor);
+void spi_nor_try_unlock_all(struct spi_nor *nor);
+void spi_nor_register_locking_ops(struct spi_nor *nor);
+
 static struct spi_nor __maybe_unused *mtd_to_spi_nor(struct mtd_info *mtd)
 {
 	return mtd->priv;
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..75b9bb53d584
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c
@@ -0,0 +1,419 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2005, Intec Automation Inc.
+ * Copyright (C) 2014, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
+ */
+#include <linux/mtd/mtd.h>
+#include <linux/mtd/spi-nor.h>
+
+#include "core.h"
+
+static u8 spi_nor_get_sr_bp_mask(struct spi_nor *nor)
+{
+	u8 mask = SR_BP2 | SR_BP1 | SR_BP0;
+
+	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_BP3_BIT6)
+		return mask | SR_BP3_BIT6;
+
+	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_4BIT_BP)
+		return mask | SR_BP3;
+
+	return mask;
+}
+
+static u8 spi_nor_get_sr_tb_mask(struct spi_nor *nor)
+{
+	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_TB_BIT6)
+		return SR_TB_BIT6;
+	else
+		return SR_TB_BIT5;
+}
+
+static u64 spi_nor_get_min_prot_length_sr(struct spi_nor *nor)
+{
+	unsigned int bp_slots, bp_slots_needed;
+	u8 mask = spi_nor_get_sr_bp_mask(nor);
+
+	/* Reserved one for "protect none" and one for "protect all". */
+	bp_slots = (1 << hweight8(mask)) - 2;
+	bp_slots_needed = ilog2(nor->info->n_sectors);
+
+	if (bp_slots_needed > bp_slots)
+		return nor->info->sector_size <<
+			(bp_slots_needed - bp_slots);
+	else
+		return nor->info->sector_size;
+}
+
+static void spi_nor_get_locked_range_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, u8 sr, loff_t *ofs,
+					uint64_t *len)
+{
+	struct mtd_info *mtd = &nor->mtd;
+	u64 min_prot_len;
+	u8 mask = spi_nor_get_sr_bp_mask(nor);
+	u8 tb_mask = spi_nor_get_sr_tb_mask(nor);
+	u8 bp, val = sr & mask;
+
+	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_BP3_BIT6 && val & SR_BP3_BIT6)
+		val = (val & ~SR_BP3_BIT6) | SR_BP3;
+
+	bp = val >> SR_BP_SHIFT;
+
+	if (!bp) {
+		/* No protection */
+		*ofs = 0;
+		*len = 0;
+		return;
+	}
+
+	min_prot_len = spi_nor_get_min_prot_length_sr(nor);
+	*len = min_prot_len << (bp - 1);
+
+	if (*len > mtd->size)
+		*len = mtd->size;
+
+	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_TB && sr & tb_mask)
+		*ofs = 0;
+	else
+		*ofs = mtd->size - *len;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Return 1 if the entire region is locked (if @locked is true) or unlocked (if
+ * @locked is false); 0 otherwise
+ */
+static int spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs,
+					uint64_t len, u8 sr, bool locked)
+{
+	loff_t lock_offs;
+	uint64_t lock_len;
+
+	if (!len)
+		return 1;
+
+	spi_nor_get_locked_range_sr(nor, sr, &lock_offs, &lock_len);
+
+	if (locked)
+		/* Requested range is a sub-range of locked range */
+		return (ofs + len <= lock_offs + lock_len) && (ofs >= lock_offs);
+	else
+		/* Requested range does not overlap with locked range */
+		return (ofs >= lock_offs + lock_len) || (ofs + len <= lock_offs);
+}
+
+static int spi_nor_is_locked_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len,
+				u8 sr)
+{
+	return spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(nor, ofs, len, sr, true);
+}
+
+static int spi_nor_is_unlocked_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len,
+				  u8 sr)
+{
+	return spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(nor, ofs, len, sr, false);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Lock a region of the flash. Compatible with ST Micro and similar flash.
+ * Supports the block protection bits BP{0,1,2}/BP{0,1,2,3} in the status
+ * register
+ * (SR). Does not support these features found in newer SR bitfields:
+ *   - SEC: sector/block protect - only handle SEC=0 (block protect)
+ *   - CMP: complement protect - only support CMP=0 (range is not complemented)
+ *
+ * Support for the following is provided conditionally for some flash:
+ *   - TB: top/bottom protect
+ *
+ * Sample table portion for 8MB flash (Winbond w25q64fw):
+ *
+ *   SEC  |  TB   |  BP2  |  BP1  |  BP0  |  Prot Length  | Protected Portion
+ *  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ *    X   |   X   |   0   |   0   |   0   |  NONE         | NONE
+ *    0   |   0   |   0   |   0   |   1   |  128 KB       | Upper 1/64
+ *    0   |   0   |   0   |   1   |   0   |  256 KB       | Upper 1/32
+ *    0   |   0   |   0   |   1   |   1   |  512 KB       | Upper 1/16
+ *    0   |   0   |   1   |   0   |   0   |  1 MB         | Upper 1/8
+ *    0   |   0   |   1   |   0   |   1   |  2 MB         | Upper 1/4
+ *    0   |   0   |   1   |   1   |   0   |  4 MB         | Upper 1/2
+ *    X   |   X   |   1   |   1   |   1   |  8 MB         | ALL
+ *  ------|-------|-------|-------|-------|---------------|-------------------
+ *    0   |   1   |   0   |   0   |   1   |  128 KB       | Lower 1/64
+ *    0   |   1   |   0   |   1   |   0   |  256 KB       | Lower 1/32
+ *    0   |   1   |   0   |   1   |   1   |  512 KB       | Lower 1/16
+ *    0   |   1   |   1   |   0   |   0   |  1 MB         | Lower 1/8
+ *    0   |   1   |   1   |   0   |   1   |  2 MB         | Lower 1/4
+ *    0   |   1   |   1   |   1   |   0   |  4 MB         | Lower 1/2
+ *
+ * Returns negative on errors, 0 on success.
+ */
+static int spi_nor_sr_lock(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
+{
+	struct mtd_info *mtd = &nor->mtd;
+	u64 min_prot_len;
+	int ret, status_old, status_new;
+	u8 mask = spi_nor_get_sr_bp_mask(nor);
+	u8 tb_mask = spi_nor_get_sr_tb_mask(nor);
+	u8 pow, val;
+	loff_t lock_len;
+	bool can_be_top = true, can_be_bottom = nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_TB;
+	bool use_top;
+
+	ret = spi_nor_read_sr(nor, nor->bouncebuf);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	status_old = nor->bouncebuf[0];
+
+	/* If nothing in our range is unlocked, we don't need to do anything */
+	if (spi_nor_is_locked_sr(nor, ofs, len, status_old))
+		return 0;
+
+	/* If anything below us is unlocked, we can't use 'bottom' protection */
+	if (!spi_nor_is_locked_sr(nor, 0, ofs, status_old))
+		can_be_bottom = false;
+
+	/* If anything above us is unlocked, we can't use 'top' protection */
+	if (!spi_nor_is_locked_sr(nor, ofs + len, mtd->size - (ofs + len),
+				  status_old))
+		can_be_top = false;
+
+	if (!can_be_bottom && !can_be_top)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	/* Prefer top, if both are valid */
+	use_top = can_be_top;
+
+	/* lock_len: length of region that should end up locked */
+	if (use_top)
+		lock_len = mtd->size - ofs;
+	else
+		lock_len = ofs + len;
+
+	if (lock_len == mtd->size) {
+		val = mask;
+	} else {
+		min_prot_len = spi_nor_get_min_prot_length_sr(nor);
+		pow = ilog2(lock_len) - ilog2(min_prot_len) + 1;
+		val = pow << SR_BP_SHIFT;
+
+		if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_BP3_BIT6 && val & SR_BP3)
+			val = (val & ~SR_BP3) | SR_BP3_BIT6;
+
+		if (val & ~mask)
+			return -EINVAL;
+
+		/* Don't "lock" with no region! */
+		if (!(val & mask))
+			return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	status_new = (status_old & ~mask & ~tb_mask) | val;
+
+	/* Disallow further writes if WP pin is asserted */
+	status_new |= SR_SRWD;
+
+	if (!use_top)
+		status_new |= tb_mask;
+
+	/* Don't bother if they're the same */
+	if (status_new == status_old)
+		return 0;
+
+	/* Only modify protection if it will not unlock other areas */
+	if ((status_new & mask) < (status_old & mask))
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	return spi_nor_write_sr_and_check(nor, status_new);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Unlock a region of the flash. See spi_nor_sr_lock() for more info
+ *
+ * Returns negative on errors, 0 on success.
+ */
+static int spi_nor_sr_unlock(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
+{
+	struct mtd_info *mtd = &nor->mtd;
+	u64 min_prot_len;
+	int ret, status_old, status_new;
+	u8 mask = spi_nor_get_sr_bp_mask(nor);
+	u8 tb_mask = spi_nor_get_sr_tb_mask(nor);
+	u8 pow, val;
+	loff_t lock_len;
+	bool can_be_top = true, can_be_bottom = nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_TB;
+	bool use_top;
+
+	ret = spi_nor_read_sr(nor, nor->bouncebuf);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	status_old = nor->bouncebuf[0];
+
+	/* If nothing in our range is locked, we don't need to do anything */
+	if (spi_nor_is_unlocked_sr(nor, ofs, len, status_old))
+		return 0;
+
+	/* If anything below us is locked, we can't use 'top' protection */
+	if (!spi_nor_is_unlocked_sr(nor, 0, ofs, status_old))
+		can_be_top = false;
+
+	/* If anything above us is locked, we can't use 'bottom' protection */
+	if (!spi_nor_is_unlocked_sr(nor, ofs + len, mtd->size - (ofs + len),
+				    status_old))
+		can_be_bottom = false;
+
+	if (!can_be_bottom && !can_be_top)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	/* Prefer top, if both are valid */
+	use_top = can_be_top;
+
+	/* lock_len: length of region that should remain locked */
+	if (use_top)
+		lock_len = mtd->size - (ofs + len);
+	else
+		lock_len = ofs;
+
+	if (lock_len == 0) {
+		val = 0; /* fully unlocked */
+	} else {
+		min_prot_len = spi_nor_get_min_prot_length_sr(nor);
+		pow = ilog2(lock_len) - ilog2(min_prot_len) + 1;
+		val = pow << SR_BP_SHIFT;
+
+		if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_BP3_BIT6 && val & SR_BP3)
+			val = (val & ~SR_BP3) | SR_BP3_BIT6;
+
+		/* Some power-of-two sizes are not supported */
+		if (val & ~mask)
+			return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	status_new = (status_old & ~mask & ~tb_mask) | val;
+
+	/* Don't protect status register if we're fully unlocked */
+	if (lock_len == 0)
+		status_new &= ~SR_SRWD;
+
+	if (!use_top)
+		status_new |= tb_mask;
+
+	/* Don't bother if they're the same */
+	if (status_new == status_old)
+		return 0;
+
+	/* Only modify protection if it will not lock other areas */
+	if ((status_new & mask) > (status_old & mask))
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	return spi_nor_write_sr_and_check(nor, status_new);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Check if a region of the flash is (completely) locked. See spi_nor_sr_lock()
+ * for more info.
+ *
+ * Returns 1 if entire region is locked, 0 if any portion is unlocked, and
+ * negative on errors.
+ */
+static int spi_nor_sr_is_locked(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = spi_nor_read_sr(nor, nor->bouncebuf);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	return spi_nor_is_locked_sr(nor, ofs, len, nor->bouncebuf[0]);
+}
+
+static const struct spi_nor_locking_ops spi_nor_sr_locking_ops = {
+	.lock = spi_nor_sr_lock,
+	.unlock = spi_nor_sr_unlock,
+	.is_locked = spi_nor_sr_is_locked,
+};
+
+void spi_nor_init_default_locking_ops(struct spi_nor *nor)
+{
+	nor->params->locking_ops = &spi_nor_sr_locking_ops;
+}
+
+static int spi_nor_lock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
+{
+	struct spi_nor *nor = mtd_to_spi_nor(mtd);
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = spi_nor_lock_and_prep(nor);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	ret = nor->params->locking_ops->lock(nor, ofs, len);
+
+	spi_nor_unlock_and_unprep(nor);
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static int spi_nor_unlock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
+{
+	struct spi_nor *nor = mtd_to_spi_nor(mtd);
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = spi_nor_lock_and_prep(nor);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	ret = nor->params->locking_ops->unlock(nor, ofs, len);
+
+	spi_nor_unlock_and_unprep(nor);
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static int spi_nor_is_locked(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
+{
+	struct spi_nor *nor = mtd_to_spi_nor(mtd);
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = spi_nor_lock_and_prep(nor);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	ret = nor->params->locking_ops->is_locked(nor, ofs, len);
+
+	spi_nor_unlock_and_unprep(nor);
+	return ret;
+}
+
+/**
+ * spi_nor_try_unlock_all() - Tries to unlock the entire flash memory array.
+ * @nor:	pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'.
+ *
+ * Some SPI NOR flashes are write protected by default after a power-on reset
+ * cycle, in order to avoid inadvertent writes during power-up. Backward
+ * compatibility imposes to unlock the entire flash memory array at power-up
+ * by default.
+ *
+ * Unprotecting the entire flash array will fail for boards which are hardware
+ * write-protected. Thus any errors are ignored.
+ */
+void spi_nor_try_unlock_all(struct spi_nor *nor)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	if (!(nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_LOCK))
+		return;
+
+	dev_dbg(nor->dev, "Unprotecting entire flash array\n");
+
+	ret = spi_nor_unlock(&nor->mtd, 0, nor->params->size);
+	if (ret)
+		dev_dbg(nor->dev, "Failed to unlock the entire flash memory array\n");
+}
+
+void spi_nor_register_locking_ops(struct spi_nor *nor)
+{
+	struct mtd_info *mtd = &nor->mtd;
+
+	mtd->_lock = spi_nor_lock;
+	mtd->_unlock = spi_nor_unlock;
+	mtd->_is_locked = spi_nor_is_locked;
+}
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

[Michael Walle]

Am 2021-03-06 10:50, schrieb Tudor Ambarus:
> It makes the core file a bit smaller and provides better separation
> between the Software Write Protection features and the core logic.
> All the next generic software write protection features (e.g. 
> Individual
> Block Protection) will reside in swp.c.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
> ---

[..]

> @@ -3554,6 +3152,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char 
> *name,
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
> 
> +	if (nor->params->locking_ops)

Should this be in spi_nor_register_locking_ops(), too? I.e.

void spi_nor_register_locking_ops() {
     if (!nor->params->locking_ops)
         return;
..
}

I don't have a strong opinion on that so far. I just noticed because
I put the check into spi_nor_otp_init() for my OTP series. They should
be the same though.

> +		spi_nor_register_locking_ops(nor);

-michael

Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

[Tudor.Ambarus]

On 3/6/21 1:19 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> Am 2021-03-06 10:50, schrieb Tudor Ambarus:
>> It makes the core file a bit smaller and provides better separation
>> between the Software Write Protection features and the core logic.
>> All the next generic software write protection features (e.g.
>> Individual
>> Block Protection) will reside in swp.c.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
>> ---
> 
> [..]
> 
>> @@ -3554,6 +3152,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char
>> *name,
>>       if (ret)
>>               return ret;
>>
>> +     if (nor->params->locking_ops)
> 
> Should this be in spi_nor_register_locking_ops(), too? I.e.
> 
> void spi_nor_register_locking_ops() {
>     if (!nor->params->locking_ops)
>         return;
> ..
> }

Yes, the checking should be done inside spi_nor_register_locking_ops,
will move it.

Btw, what do you find a better name, spi_nor_register_locking_ops or
spi_nor_init_locking_ops? Applies to OTP as well.

Thanks,
ta

> 
> I don't have a strong opinion on that so far. I just noticed because
> I put the check into spi_nor_otp_init() for my OTP series. They should
> be the same though.
> 
>> +             spi_nor_register_locking_ops(nor);
> 
> -michael

Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

[Pratyush Yadav]

On 15/03/21 06:09AM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote:
> On 3/6/21 1:19 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> > Am 2021-03-06 10:50, schrieb Tudor Ambarus:
> >> It makes the core file a bit smaller and provides better separation
> >> between the Software Write Protection features and the core logic.
> >> All the next generic software write protection features (e.g.
> >> Individual
> >> Block Protection) will reside in swp.c.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
> >> ---
> > 
> > [..]
> > 
> >> @@ -3554,6 +3152,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char
> >> *name,
> >>       if (ret)
> >>               return ret;
> >>
> >> +     if (nor->params->locking_ops)
> > 
> > Should this be in spi_nor_register_locking_ops(), too? I.e.
> > 
> > void spi_nor_register_locking_ops() {
> >     if (!nor->params->locking_ops)
> >         return;
> > ..
> > }
> 
> Yes, the checking should be done inside spi_nor_register_locking_ops,
> will move it.
> 
> Btw, what do you find a better name, spi_nor_register_locking_ops or
> spi_nor_init_locking_ops? Applies to OTP as well.

On a quick glance, spi_nor_register_locking_ops() can be mistaken to 
mean "Register locking ops". That is, ops to lock/unlock flash 
registers. If you do want to keep using "register", IMO 
spi_nor_locking_ops_register() would be better.

> 
> Thanks,
> ta
> 
> > 
> > I don't have a strong opinion on that so far. I just noticed because
> > I put the check into spi_nor_otp_init() for my OTP series. They should
> > be the same though.
> > 
> >> +             spi_nor_register_locking_ops(nor);
> > 
> > -michael
> 

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
Texas Instruments Inc.

Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

[Michael Walle]

Am 2021-03-15 07:09, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com:
> On 3/6/21 1:19 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know 
>> the content is safe
>> 
>> Am 2021-03-06 10:50, schrieb Tudor Ambarus:
>>> It makes the core file a bit smaller and provides better separation
>>> between the Software Write Protection features and the core logic.
>>> All the next generic software write protection features (e.g.
>>> Individual
>>> Block Protection) will reside in swp.c.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
>>> ---
>> 
>> [..]
>> 
>>> @@ -3554,6 +3152,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const 
>>> char
>>> *name,
>>>       if (ret)
>>>               return ret;
>>> 
>>> +     if (nor->params->locking_ops)
>> 
>> Should this be in spi_nor_register_locking_ops(), too? I.e.
>> 
>> void spi_nor_register_locking_ops() {
>>     if (!nor->params->locking_ops)
>>         return;
>> ..
>> }
> 
> Yes, the checking should be done inside spi_nor_register_locking_ops,
> will move it.
> 
> Btw, what do you find a better name, spi_nor_register_locking_ops or
> spi_nor_init_locking_ops? Applies to OTP as well.

probably register_locking_ops(), as long as the function just does
that.

For OTP, I want to provide nvmem support, too. Thus it will not
only register the mtd ops and thus spi_nor_otp_init() will be
better for my case.

-michael

Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

[Vignesh Raghavendra]

On 3/6/21 3:20 PM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> It makes the core file a bit smaller and provides better separation
> between the Software Write Protection features and the core logic.
> All the next generic software write protection features (e.g. Individual
> Block Protection) will reside in swp.c.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile |   2 +-
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c   | 407 +---------------------------------
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h   |   4 +
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c    | 419 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmmm, name swp.c does not seem intuitive to me. How about expanding it a
bit:

soft-wr-protect.c or software-write-protect.c ?

Regards
Vignesh

Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

[Tudor.Ambarus]

On 3/8/21 7:28 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On 3/6/21 3:20 PM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>> It makes the core file a bit smaller and provides better separation
>> between the Software Write Protection features and the core logic.
>> All the next generic software write protection features (e.g. Individual
>> Block Protection) will reside in swp.c.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile |   2 +-
>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c   | 407 +---------------------------------
>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h   |   4 +
>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c    | 419 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Hmmm, name swp.c does not seem intuitive to me. How about expanding it a
> bit:
> 
> soft-wr-protect.c or software-write-protect.c ?
> 

I thought about the SWP configs that we have.

How about keeping swp.c and rename configs to:
s/MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_DISABLE/MTD_SPI_NOR_DISABLE_BOOT_SWP
s/MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_DISABLE_ON_VOLATILE/MTD_SPI_DISABLE_BOOT_SWP_ON_VOLATILE
s/MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_KEEP/MTD_SPI_NOR_KEEP_BOOT_SWP

The renamed configs should better indicate that the software write protection
is disabled just at boot time, while the locking support is still enabled.
Otherwise one may think that with a MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_DISABLE, all the
software write protection features are stripped/not available.

Cheers,
ta

Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

[Vignesh Raghavendra]

On 3/9/21 12:58 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote:
> On 3/8/21 7:28 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> On 3/6/21 3:20 PM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>> It makes the core file a bit smaller and provides better separation
>>> between the Software Write Protection features and the core logic.
>>> All the next generic software write protection features (e.g. Individual
>>> Block Protection) will reside in swp.c.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile |   2 +-
>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c   | 407 +---------------------------------
>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h   |   4 +
>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c    | 419 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Hmmm, name swp.c does not seem intuitive to me. How about expanding it a
>> bit:
>>
>> soft-wr-protect.c or software-write-protect.c ?
>>
> 
> I thought about the SWP configs that we have.
> 
> How about keeping swp.c and rename configs to:
> s/MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_DISABLE/MTD_SPI_NOR_DISABLE_BOOT_SWP
> s/MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_DISABLE_ON_VOLATILE/MTD_SPI_DISABLE_BOOT_SWP_ON_VOLATILE
> s/MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_KEEP/MTD_SPI_NOR_KEEP_BOOT_SWP
> 
> The renamed configs should better indicate that the software write protection
> is disabled just at boot time, while the locking support is still enabled.
> Otherwise one may think that with a MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_DISABLE, all the
> software write protection features are stripped/not available.
> 

I am not a fan of renaming Kconfig options as it breaks make
olddefconfig flow which many developers rely on.

Regards
Vignesh

Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

[Tudor.Ambarus]

On 3/15/21 8:23 AM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On 3/9/21 12:58 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote:
>> On 3/8/21 7:28 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>
>>> On 3/6/21 3:20 PM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>>> It makes the core file a bit smaller and provides better separation
>>>> between the Software Write Protection features and the core logic.
>>>> All the next generic software write protection features (e.g. Individual
>>>> Block Protection) will reside in swp.c.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile |   2 +-
>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c   | 407 +---------------------------------
>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h   |   4 +
>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c    | 419 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Hmmm, name swp.c does not seem intuitive to me. How about expanding it a
>>> bit:
>>>
>>> soft-wr-protect.c or software-write-protect.c ?

Having in mind that we have the SWP configs, I think I prefer swp.c.
But let's see what majority thinks, we'll do as majority prefers.
Michael, Pratyush?

>>>
>>

cut

> 
> I am not a fan of renaming Kconfig options as it breaks make
> olddefconfig flow which many developers rely on.
> 

I'm fine keeping them as they are for now. If someone else screams we will
reconsider.

Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

[Michael Walle]

Am 2021-03-17 07:09, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com:
> On 3/15/21 8:23 AM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know 
>> the content is safe
>> 
>> On 3/9/21 12:58 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote:
>>> On 3/8/21 7:28 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you 
>>>> know the content is safe
>>>> 
>>>> On 3/6/21 3:20 PM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>>>> It makes the core file a bit smaller and provides better separation
>>>>> between the Software Write Protection features and the core logic.
>>>>> All the next generic software write protection features (e.g. 
>>>>> Individual
>>>>> Block Protection) will reside in swp.c.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile |   2 +-
>>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c   | 407 
>>>>> +---------------------------------
>>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h   |   4 +
>>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c    | 419 
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 
>>>> Hmmm, name swp.c does not seem intuitive to me. How about expanding 
>>>> it a
>>>> bit:
>>>> 
>>>> soft-wr-protect.c or software-write-protect.c ?
> 
> Having in mind that we have the SWP configs, I think I prefer swp.c.
> But let's see what majority thinks, we'll do as majority prefers.
> Michael, Pratyush?

It's just an internal name, thus as long as it remotely makes sense,
I'm fine. It's just a matter of taste, isn't it?

But here's one technical reason that would bother me more: name
clashes between the core modules: core, sfdp, otp, swp and the
vendor names. It is very unlikely, but there is a non-zero chance ;)

-michael

Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

[Tudor.Ambarus]

On 3/17/21 10:21 AM, Michael Walle wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> Am 2021-03-17 07:09, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com:
>> On 3/15/21 8:23 AM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
>>> the content is safe
>>>
>>> On 3/9/21 12:58 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/21 7:28 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
>>>>> know the content is safe
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/6/21 3:20 PM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>>>>> It makes the core file a bit smaller and provides better separation
>>>>>> between the Software Write Protection features and the core logic.
>>>>>> All the next generic software write protection features (e.g.
>>>>>> Individual
>>>>>> Block Protection) will reside in swp.c.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile |   2 +-
>>>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c   | 407
>>>>>> +---------------------------------
>>>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h   |   4 +
>>>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c    | 419
>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm, name swp.c does not seem intuitive to me. How about expanding
>>>>> it a
>>>>> bit:
>>>>>
>>>>> soft-wr-protect.c or software-write-protect.c ?
>>
>> Having in mind that we have the SWP configs, I think I prefer swp.c.
>> But let's see what majority thinks, we'll do as majority prefers.
>> Michael, Pratyush?
> 
> It's just an internal name, thus as long as it remotely makes sense,
> I'm fine. It's just a matter of taste, isn't it?

Sure, it's a matter of preference. What's yours?

> 
> But here's one technical reason that would bother me more: name
> clashes between the core modules: core, sfdp, otp, swp and the
> vendor names. It is very unlikely, but there is a non-zero chance ;)
> 

We can move all manufacturers to a manufacturers/ folder. Each manufacturer
driver will have to #include "../core.h", about what I have some mixed
feelings.

Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

[Michael Walle]

Am 2021-03-17 10:30, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com:
>>>>>> soft-wr-protect.c or software-write-protect.c ?
>>> 
>>> Having in mind that we have the SWP configs, I think I prefer swp.c.
>>> But let's see what majority thinks, we'll do as majority prefers.
>>> Michael, Pratyush?
>> 
>> It's just an internal name, thus as long as it remotely makes sense,
>> I'm fine. It's just a matter of taste, isn't it?
> 
> Sure, it's a matter of preference. What's yours?

if i have to choose, swp.c

>> But here's one technical reason that would bother me more: name
>> clashes between the core modules: core, sfdp, otp, swp and the
>> vendor names. It is very unlikely, but there is a non-zero chance ;)
>> 
> 
> We can move all manufacturers to a manufacturers/ folder. Each 
> manufacturer
> driver will have to #include "../core.h", about what I have some mixed
> feelings.

I don't think it makes sense as long as there is no clash; or until 
there
are many more core modules, so you can't keep them apart anymore.
It will just make it harder to follow the git history.

-michael

Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

[Pratyush Yadav]

On 17/03/21 06:09AM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote:
> On 3/15/21 8:23 AM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> > On 3/9/21 12:58 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote:
> >> On 3/8/21 7:28 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
> >>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >>>
> >>> On 3/6/21 3:20 PM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> >>>> It makes the core file a bit smaller and provides better separation
> >>>> between the Software Write Protection features and the core logic.
> >>>> All the next generic software write protection features (e.g. Individual
> >>>> Block Protection) will reside in swp.c.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile |   2 +-
> >>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c   | 407 +---------------------------------
> >>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h   |   4 +
> >>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c    | 419 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>
> >>> Hmmm, name swp.c does not seem intuitive to me. How about expanding it a
> >>> bit:
> >>>
> >>> soft-wr-protect.c or software-write-protect.c ?
> 
> Having in mind that we have the SWP configs, I think I prefer swp.c.
> But let's see what majority thinks, we'll do as majority prefers.
> Michael, Pratyush?

I don't have much of an opinion on this tbh. But I usually prefer short 
names so I'd go with swp.c here. Maybe also add a comment at the top of 
the file mentioning the full name "Software Write Protection logic" or 
something similar for clarification.

> 
> >>>
> >>
> 
> cut
> 
> > 
> > I am not a fan of renaming Kconfig options as it breaks make
> > olddefconfig flow which many developers rely on.
> > 
> 
> I'm fine keeping them as they are for now. If someone else screams we will
> reconsider.

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
Texas Instruments Inc.

Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

[Vignesh Raghavendra]

On 3/17/21 2:35 PM, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On 17/03/21 06:09AM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote:
>> On 3/15/21 8:23 AM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>
>>> On 3/9/21 12:58 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/21 7:28 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/6/21 3:20 PM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>>>>> It makes the core file a bit smaller and provides better separation
>>>>>> between the Software Write Protection features and the core logic.
>>>>>> All the next generic software write protection features (e.g. Individual
>>>>>> Block Protection) will reside in swp.c.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile |   2 +-
>>>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c   | 407 +---------------------------------
>>>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h   |   4 +
>>>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c    | 419 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm, name swp.c does not seem intuitive to me. How about expanding it a
>>>>> bit:
>>>>>
>>>>> soft-wr-protect.c or software-write-protect.c ?
>>
>> Having in mind that we have the SWP configs, I think I prefer swp.c.
>> But let's see what majority thinks, we'll do as majority prefers.
>> Michael, Pratyush?
> 
> I don't have much of an opinion on this tbh. But I usually prefer short 
> names so I'd go with swp.c here. Maybe also add a comment at the top of 
> the file mentioning the full name "Software Write Protection logic" or 
> something similar for clarification.
> 

I don't have hard objection to swp.c. As Pratyush suggested, a comment
at top of the file indicating the purpose would be good to have.

[PATCH v2 5/5] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Drop 'else' after 'return'

[Tudor Ambarus]

else is not generally useful after a break or return.

Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
---
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c | 14 +++++++-------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c
index 75b9bb53d584..c35cb3becb41 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c
@@ -25,8 +25,8 @@ static u8 spi_nor_get_sr_tb_mask(struct spi_nor *nor)
 {
 	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_SR_TB_BIT6)
 		return SR_TB_BIT6;
-	else
-		return SR_TB_BIT5;
+
+	return SR_TB_BIT5;
 }
 
 static u64 spi_nor_get_min_prot_length_sr(struct spi_nor *nor)
@@ -41,8 +41,8 @@ static u64 spi_nor_get_min_prot_length_sr(struct spi_nor *nor)
 	if (bp_slots_needed > bp_slots)
 		return nor->info->sector_size <<
 			(bp_slots_needed - bp_slots);
-	else
-		return nor->info->sector_size;
+
+	return nor->info->sector_size;
 }
 
 static void spi_nor_get_locked_range_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, u8 sr, loff_t *ofs,
@@ -96,9 +96,9 @@ static int spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs,
 	if (locked)
 		/* Requested range is a sub-range of locked range */
 		return (ofs + len <= lock_offs + lock_len) && (ofs >= lock_offs);
-	else
-		/* Requested range does not overlap with locked range */
-		return (ofs >= lock_offs + lock_len) || (ofs + len <= lock_offs);
+
+	/* Requested range does not overlap with locked range */
+	return (ofs >= lock_offs + lock_len) || (ofs + len <= lock_offs);
 }
 
 static int spi_nor_is_locked_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len,
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Drop 'else' after 'return'

[Pratyush Yadav]

On 06/03/21 11:50AM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> else is not generally useful after a break or return.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>

Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com>

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
Texas Instruments Inc.

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Drop 'else' after 'return'

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2021-03-08 at 11:58 +0530, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On 06/03/21 11:50AM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> > else is not generally useful after a break or return.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com>
> 

I don't think this improves the code.

Generally, checkpatch is a stupid little script.

This code uses a form like:
	if (foo)
		return bar;
	else
		return baz;

which checkpatch recognizes as OK and so checkpatch does not
emit any warning message, but this code just adds comments
before each return which confuses checkpatch.

I think better would be to change the code to use temporaries
and convert the functions to bool.

Something like:
---
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 25 +++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
index 0522304f52fa..e174a2f1d621 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
@@ -1798,36 +1798,41 @@ static void spi_nor_get_locked_range_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, u8 sr, loff_t *ofs,
 }
 
 /*
- * Return 1 if the entire region is locked (if @locked is true) or unlocked (if
- * @locked is false); 0 otherwise
+ * Return true if the entire region is locked
+ * (if @locked is true) or unlocked (if @locked is false); false otherwise
  */
-static int spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs,
+static bool spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs,
 					uint64_t len, u8 sr, bool locked)
 {
 	loff_t lock_offs;
 	uint64_t lock_len;
+	uint64_t lock_max;
+	uint64_t ofs_max;
 
 	if (!len)
-		return 1;
+		return true;
 
 	spi_nor_get_locked_range_sr(nor, sr, &lock_offs, &lock_len);
 
+	lock_max = lock_offs + lock_len;
+	ofs_max = ofs + len;
+
 	if (locked)
 		/* Requested range is a sub-range of locked range */
-		return (ofs + len <= lock_offs + lock_len) && (ofs >= lock_offs);
+		return (ofs_max <= lock_max) && (ofs >= lock_offs);
 	else
 		/* Requested range does not overlap with locked range */
-		return (ofs >= lock_offs + lock_len) || (ofs + len <= lock_offs);
+		return (ofs >= lock_max) || (ofs_max <= lock_offs);
 }
 
-static int spi_nor_is_locked_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len,
-				u8 sr)
+static bool spi_nor_is_locked_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len,
+				 u8 sr)
 {
 	return spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(nor, ofs, len, sr, true);
 }
 
-static int spi_nor_is_unlocked_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len,
-				  u8 sr)
+static bool spi_nor_is_unlocked_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len,
+				   u8 sr)
 {
 	return spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(nor, ofs, len, sr, false);
 }

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Drop 'else' after 'return'

[Tudor.Ambarus]

On 3/15/21 8:53 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On Mon, 2021-03-08 at 11:58 +0530, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
>> On 06/03/21 11:50AM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>> else is not generally useful after a break or return.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com>
>>
> 
> I don't think this improves the code.
> 
> Generally, checkpatch is a stupid little script.
> 
> This code uses a form like:
>         if (foo)
>                 return bar;
>         else
>                 return baz;

Isn't else redundant? What are the benefits of keeping the else?

> 
> which checkpatch recognizes as OK and so checkpatch does not
> emit any warning message, but this code just adds comments
> before each return which confuses checkpatch.
> 
> I think better would be to change the code to use temporaries
> and convert the functions to bool.
> 
> Something like:
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 25 +++++++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> index 0522304f52fa..e174a2f1d621 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> @@ -1798,36 +1798,41 @@ static void spi_nor_get_locked_range_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, u8 sr, loff_t *ofs,
>  }
> 
>  /*
> - * Return 1 if the entire region is locked (if @locked is true) or unlocked (if
> - * @locked is false); 0 otherwise
> + * Return true if the entire region is locked
> + * (if @locked is true) or unlocked (if @locked is false); false otherwise
>   */
> -static int spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs,
> +static bool spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs,
>                                         uint64_t len, u8 sr, bool locked)
>  {
>         loff_t lock_offs;
>         uint64_t lock_len;
> +       uint64_t lock_max;
> +       uint64_t ofs_max;
> 
>         if (!len)
> -               return 1;
> +               return true;

returning one is wrong indeed, would you submit a patch for the conversion
of the functions to bool?

> 
>         spi_nor_get_locked_range_sr(nor, sr, &lock_offs, &lock_len);
> 
> +       lock_max = lock_offs + lock_len;
> +       ofs_max = ofs + len;
> +
>         if (locked)
>                 /* Requested range is a sub-range of locked range */
> -               return (ofs + len <= lock_offs + lock_len) && (ofs >= lock_offs);
> +               return (ofs_max <= lock_max) && (ofs >= lock_offs);
>         else
>                 /* Requested range does not overlap with locked range */
> -               return (ofs >= lock_offs + lock_len) || (ofs + len <= lock_offs);
> +               return (ofs >= lock_max) || (ofs_max <= lock_offs);

This should be fine too.

Cheers,
ta

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Drop 'else' after 'return'

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2021-03-15 at 11:24 +0000, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote:
> On 3/15/21 8:53 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-03-08 at 11:58 +0530, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> > > On 06/03/21 11:50AM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> > > > else is not generally useful after a break or return.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com>
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't think this improves the code.
> > 
> > Generally, checkpatch is a stupid little script.
> > 
> > This code uses a form like:
> >         if (foo)
> >                 return bar;
> >         else
> >                 return baz;
> 
> Isn't else redundant? What are the benefits of keeping the else?

Visual consistency and it's a widely used style.

A long time ago Al Viro wrote:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20140925032215.GK7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk/

which resulted in the patch to checkpatch that tries to ignore that style.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1411621434.4026.9.camel@joe-AO725/

> > I think better would be to change the code to use temporaries
> > and convert the functions to bool.

> returning one is wrong indeed, would you submit a patch for the conversion
> of the functions to bool?

Just a suggestion...

Re: (subset) [PATCH v2 0/5] mtd: spi-nor: Cleanup patches

[Tudor Ambarus]

On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 11:49:57 +0200, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> Various cleanup patches done while reviewing contributions.
> 
> Tudor Ambarus (5):
>   mtd: spi-nor: core: Advance erase after the erase cmd has been
>     completed
>   mtd: spi-nor: core: Add vdbg msg for spi_nor_erase_multi_sectors()
>   mtd: spi-nor: Get rid of duplicated argument in spi_nor_parse_sfdp()
>   mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core
>   mtd: spi-nor: swp: Drop 'else' after 'return'
> 
> [...]

For 2/5: s/%d/%u and then applied to spi-nor/next 1/5, 2/5 and 3/5.

[1/5] mtd: spi-nor: core: Advance erase after the erase cmd has been completed
      https://git.kernel.org/mtd/c/786a0a75d0f3
[2/5] mtd: spi-nor: core: Add vdbg msg for spi_nor_erase_multi_sectors()
      https://git.kernel.org/mtd/c/8758888c3d78
[3/5] mtd: spi-nor: Get rid of duplicated argument in spi_nor_parse_sfdp()
      https://git.kernel.org/mtd/c/a580293a19fc

Best regards,
-- 
Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>