From: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
To: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.10.y 1/5] mtd: spi-nor: sst: remove global protection flag
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2026 09:35:23 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260726133527.364488-1-sashal@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2026072003-borrowing-opium-38cc@gregkh>
From: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
[ Upstream commit a833383732116c2afe665520bbe6951999631ef1 ]
This is considered bad for the following reasons:
(1) We only support the block protection with BPn bits for write
protection. Not all SST parts support this.
(2) Newly added flash chip will automatically inherit the "has
locking" support and thus needs to explicitly tested. Better
be opt-in instead of opt-out.
(3) There are already supported flashes which doesn't support
the locking scheme. So I assume this wasn't properly tested
before adding that chip; which enforces my previous argument
that locking support should be an opt-in.
Remove the global flag and add individual flags to all flashes
which supports BP locking. In particular the following flashes
don't support the BP scheme:
- SST26VF016B
- SST26WF016B
- SST26VF064B
Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
Signed-off-by: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>
Reviewed-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201203162959.29589-5-michael@walle.cc
Stable-dep-of: e1d456b26bf2 ("mtd: spi-nor: swp: Improve locking user experience")
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c | 30 ++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c
index 777c8225f5bdcf..2fd2a162ab3be3 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sst.c
@@ -11,27 +11,27 @@
static const struct flash_info sst_parts[] = {
/* SST -- large erase sizes are "overlays", "sectors" are 4K */
{ "sst25vf040b", INFO(0xbf258d, 0, 64 * 1024, 8,
- SECT_4K | SST_WRITE) },
+ SECT_4K | SST_WRITE | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
{ "sst25vf080b", INFO(0xbf258e, 0, 64 * 1024, 16,
- SECT_4K | SST_WRITE) },
+ SECT_4K | SST_WRITE | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
{ "sst25vf016b", INFO(0xbf2541, 0, 64 * 1024, 32,
- SECT_4K | SST_WRITE) },
+ SECT_4K | SST_WRITE | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
{ "sst25vf032b", INFO(0xbf254a, 0, 64 * 1024, 64,
- SECT_4K | SST_WRITE) },
+ SECT_4K | SST_WRITE | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
{ "sst25vf064c", INFO(0xbf254b, 0, 64 * 1024, 128,
- SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_4BIT_BP) },
+ SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_4BIT_BP | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
{ "sst25wf512", INFO(0xbf2501, 0, 64 * 1024, 1,
- SECT_4K | SST_WRITE) },
+ SECT_4K | SST_WRITE | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
{ "sst25wf010", INFO(0xbf2502, 0, 64 * 1024, 2,
- SECT_4K | SST_WRITE) },
+ SECT_4K | SST_WRITE | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
{ "sst25wf020", INFO(0xbf2503, 0, 64 * 1024, 4,
- SECT_4K | SST_WRITE) },
- { "sst25wf020a", INFO(0x621612, 0, 64 * 1024, 4, SECT_4K) },
- { "sst25wf040b", INFO(0x621613, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, SECT_4K) },
+ SECT_4K | SST_WRITE | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
+ { "sst25wf020a", INFO(0x621612, 0, 64 * 1024, 4, SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
+ { "sst25wf040b", INFO(0x621613, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
{ "sst25wf040", INFO(0xbf2504, 0, 64 * 1024, 8,
- SECT_4K | SST_WRITE) },
+ SECT_4K | SST_WRITE | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
{ "sst25wf080", INFO(0xbf2505, 0, 64 * 1024, 16,
- SECT_4K | SST_WRITE) },
+ SECT_4K | SST_WRITE | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
{ "sst26wf016b", INFO(0xbf2651, 0, 64 * 1024, 32,
SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ |
SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
@@ -141,11 +141,6 @@ static int sst_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len,
return ret;
}
-static void sst_default_init(struct spi_nor *nor)
-{
- nor->flags |= SNOR_F_HAS_LOCK;
-}
-
static void sst_post_sfdp_fixups(struct spi_nor *nor)
{
if (nor->info->flags & SST_WRITE)
@@ -153,7 +148,6 @@ static void sst_post_sfdp_fixups(struct spi_nor *nor)
}
static const struct spi_nor_fixups sst_fixups = {
- .default_init = sst_default_init,
.post_sfdp = sst_post_sfdp_fixups,
};
--
2.53.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-26 13:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-20 15:00 FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Improve locking user experience" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree gregkh
2026-07-26 13:35 ` Sasha Levin [this message]
2026-07-26 13:35 ` [PATCH 5.10.y 2/5] mtd: spi-nor: intel: remove global protection flag Sasha Levin
2026-07-26 13:35 ` [PATCH 5.10.y 3/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core Sasha Levin
2026-07-26 13:35 ` [PATCH 5.10.y 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Fix spi_nor_try_unlock_all() Sasha Levin
2026-07-26 13:35 ` [PATCH 5.10.y 5/5] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Improve locking user experience Sasha Levin
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=20260726133527.364488-1-sashal@kernel.org \
--to=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=michael@walle.cc \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tudor.ambarus@microchip.com \
--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.