All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@foss.st.com>
Cc: <richard@nod.at>, <vigneshr@ti.com>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	<srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>, <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <chenshumin86@sina.com>,
	Tudor Ambarus <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>,
	Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] mtd: core: Fix a conflict between MTD and NVMEM on wp-gpios property
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 14:43:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220131144309.0ffe7cc8@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220131095755.8981-5-christophe.kerello@foss.st.com>

Hi Vignesh, Tudory, Pratyush,

+ Tudor and Pratyush

christophe.kerello@foss.st.com wrote on Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:57:55 +0100:

> Wp-gpios property can be used on NVMEM nodes and the same property can
> be also used on MTD NAND nodes. In case of the wp-gpios property is
> defined at NAND level node, the GPIO management is done at NAND driver
> level. Write protect is disabled when the driver is probed or resumed
> and is enabled when the driver is released or suspended.
> 
> When no partitions are defined in the NAND DT node, then the NAND DT node
> will be passed to NVMEM framework. If wp-gpios property is defined in
> this node, the GPIO resource is taken twice and the NAND controller
> driver fails to probe.
> 
> A new Boolean flag named skip_wp_gpio has been added in nvmem_config.
> In case skip_wp_gpio is set, it means that the GPIO is handled by the
> provider. Lets set this flag in MTD layer to avoid the conflict on
> wp_gpios property.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@foss.st.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
> index 70f492dce158..e6d251594def 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
> @@ -546,6 +546,7 @@ static int mtd_nvmem_add(struct mtd_info *mtd)
>  	config.stride = 1;
>  	config.read_only = true;
>  	config.root_only = true;
> +	config.skip_wp_gpio = true;
>  	config.no_of_node = !of_device_is_compatible(node, "nvmem-cells");
>  	config.priv = mtd;
>  
> @@ -833,6 +834,7 @@ static struct nvmem_device *mtd_otp_nvmem_register(struct mtd_info *mtd,
>  	config.owner = THIS_MODULE;
>  	config.type = NVMEM_TYPE_OTP;
>  	config.root_only = true;
> +	config.skip_wp_gpio = true;
>  	config.reg_read = reg_read;
>  	config.size = size;
>  	config.of_node = np;

TLDR: There is a conflict between MTD and NVMEM, who should handle the
WP pin when there is one? At least for raw NAND devices, I don't want
the NVMEM core to handle the wp pin. So we've introduced this
skip_wp_gpio nvmem config option. But there are two places where this
boolean can be set and one of these is for otp regions (see above). In
this case, I don't know if it is safe or if CFI/SPI-NOR rely on the
nvmem protection. Please tell us if you think this is fine for you.

Thanks,
Miquèl

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@foss.st.com>
Cc: <richard@nod.at>, <vigneshr@ti.com>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	<srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>, <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <chenshumin86@sina.com>,
	Tudor Ambarus <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>,
	Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] mtd: core: Fix a conflict between MTD and NVMEM on wp-gpios property
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 14:43:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220131144309.0ffe7cc8@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220131095755.8981-5-christophe.kerello@foss.st.com>

Hi Vignesh, Tudory, Pratyush,

+ Tudor and Pratyush

christophe.kerello@foss.st.com wrote on Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:57:55 +0100:

> Wp-gpios property can be used on NVMEM nodes and the same property can
> be also used on MTD NAND nodes. In case of the wp-gpios property is
> defined at NAND level node, the GPIO management is done at NAND driver
> level. Write protect is disabled when the driver is probed or resumed
> and is enabled when the driver is released or suspended.
> 
> When no partitions are defined in the NAND DT node, then the NAND DT node
> will be passed to NVMEM framework. If wp-gpios property is defined in
> this node, the GPIO resource is taken twice and the NAND controller
> driver fails to probe.
> 
> A new Boolean flag named skip_wp_gpio has been added in nvmem_config.
> In case skip_wp_gpio is set, it means that the GPIO is handled by the
> provider. Lets set this flag in MTD layer to avoid the conflict on
> wp_gpios property.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@foss.st.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
> index 70f492dce158..e6d251594def 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
> @@ -546,6 +546,7 @@ static int mtd_nvmem_add(struct mtd_info *mtd)
>  	config.stride = 1;
>  	config.read_only = true;
>  	config.root_only = true;
> +	config.skip_wp_gpio = true;
>  	config.no_of_node = !of_device_is_compatible(node, "nvmem-cells");
>  	config.priv = mtd;
>  
> @@ -833,6 +834,7 @@ static struct nvmem_device *mtd_otp_nvmem_register(struct mtd_info *mtd,
>  	config.owner = THIS_MODULE;
>  	config.type = NVMEM_TYPE_OTP;
>  	config.root_only = true;
> +	config.skip_wp_gpio = true;
>  	config.reg_read = reg_read;
>  	config.size = size;
>  	config.of_node = np;

TLDR: There is a conflict between MTD and NVMEM, who should handle the
WP pin when there is one? At least for raw NAND devices, I don't want
the NVMEM core to handle the wp pin. So we've introduced this
skip_wp_gpio nvmem config option. But there are two places where this
boolean can be set and one of these is for otp regions (see above). In
this case, I don't know if it is safe or if CFI/SPI-NOR rely on the
nvmem protection. Please tell us if you think this is fine for you.

Thanks,
Miquèl

  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-31 13:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-31  9:57 [PATCH v2 0/4] mtd: rawnand: stm32_fmc2: Add NAND Write Protect support Christophe Kerello
2022-01-31  9:57 ` Christophe Kerello
2022-01-31  9:57 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] dt-binding: mtd: nand: Document the wp-gpios property Christophe Kerello
2022-01-31  9:57   ` Christophe Kerello
2022-01-31  9:57 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] mtd: rawnand: stm32_fmc2: Add NAND Write Protect support Christophe Kerello
2022-01-31  9:57   ` Christophe Kerello
2022-01-31  9:57 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] nvmem: core: Fix a conflict between MTD and NVMEM on wp-gpios property Christophe Kerello
2022-01-31  9:57   ` Christophe Kerello
2022-02-17 11:01   ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2022-02-17 11:01     ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2022-02-17 13:00     ` Christophe Kerello
2022-02-17 13:00       ` Christophe Kerello
2022-01-31  9:57 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] mtd: " Christophe Kerello
2022-01-31  9:57   ` Christophe Kerello
2022-01-31 13:43   ` Miquel Raynal [this message]
2022-01-31 13:43     ` Miquel Raynal
2022-02-01 10:47     ` Pratyush Yadav
2022-02-01 10:47       ` Pratyush Yadav
2022-02-02 10:44       ` Christophe Kerello
2022-02-02 10:44         ` Christophe Kerello
2022-02-02 10:57         ` Miquel Raynal
2022-02-02 10:57           ` Miquel Raynal
2022-02-02 11:53         ` Pratyush Yadav
2022-02-02 11:53           ` Pratyush Yadav
2022-02-16  8:46           ` Christophe Kerello
2022-02-16  8:46             ` Christophe Kerello
2022-02-16  9:24             ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2022-02-16  9:24               ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2022-02-17  8:48               ` Miquel Raynal
2022-02-17  8:48                 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-02-17 11:00                 ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2022-02-17 11:00                   ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2022-02-17 14:08                   ` Miquel Raynal
2022-02-17 14:08                     ` Miquel Raynal

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20220131144309.0ffe7cc8@xps13 \
    --to=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
    --cc=Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com \
    --cc=chenshumin86@sina.com \
    --cc=christophe.kerello@foss.st.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com \
    --cc=p.yadav@ti.com \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org \
    --cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.