From: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Cc: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>,
Eliav Farber <farbere@amazon.com>, <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>,
<mwalle@kernel.org>, <richard@nod.at>, <vigneshr@ti.com>,
<linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] mtd: spi-nor: winbond: Fix protection handling
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:59:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2vxzzf3picre.fsf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87pl4l9z3c.fsf@bootlin.com> (Miquel Raynal's message of "Mon, 30 Mar 2026 16:22:15 +0200")
On Mon, Mar 30 2026, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>>> The devices do not correctly describe their Status Register layout and
>>> protection capabilities (locking flags, TB bit, BP bit configuration).
>>> As a result, the spi-nor core rejects protection requests and locking
>>> operations fail with -EINVAL, e.g.:
>>>
>>> flash_lock -l /dev/mtd29
>>> flash_lock: error!: could not lock device: /dev/mtd29
>>> error 22 (Invalid argument)
>>>
>>> Update the device flags to match the actual hardware behavior so that
>>> locking and unlocking regions work correctly.
>>>
>>> All changes were validated using flash_lock on the affected devices.
>>
>> Applied patches 1 and 3 to spi-nor/next. Thanks!
>>
>> Skipped patch 2 since you say that you haven't got a device to test
>> with. I don't have a very strong opinion on this, but I do think we
>> should test patches on real hardware just to we get some sanity checking
>> for the patch.
>
> Honestly, I am pretty convinced patch 2 cannot make more harm as the
> block protection is already badly broken by not being described at
> all. Furthermore, for similar chips I have, these bits are relevant, so
> I would rather be in favour of going forward with patch 2, because at
> most it will just not fix the behaviour as it pretends it does.
>
> My 2cts :)
Hmm, okay, I'll apply that one too then.
--
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Cc: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>,
Eliav Farber <farbere@amazon.com>, <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>,
<mwalle@kernel.org>, <richard@nod.at>, <vigneshr@ti.com>,
<linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] mtd: spi-nor: winbond: Fix protection handling
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:59:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2vxzzf3picre.fsf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87pl4l9z3c.fsf@bootlin.com> (Miquel Raynal's message of "Mon, 30 Mar 2026 16:22:15 +0200")
On Mon, Mar 30 2026, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>>> The devices do not correctly describe their Status Register layout and
>>> protection capabilities (locking flags, TB bit, BP bit configuration).
>>> As a result, the spi-nor core rejects protection requests and locking
>>> operations fail with -EINVAL, e.g.:
>>>
>>> flash_lock -l /dev/mtd29
>>> flash_lock: error!: could not lock device: /dev/mtd29
>>> error 22 (Invalid argument)
>>>
>>> Update the device flags to match the actual hardware behavior so that
>>> locking and unlocking regions work correctly.
>>>
>>> All changes were validated using flash_lock on the affected devices.
>>
>> Applied patches 1 and 3 to spi-nor/next. Thanks!
>>
>> Skipped patch 2 since you say that you haven't got a device to test
>> with. I don't have a very strong opinion on this, but I do think we
>> should test patches on real hardware just to we get some sanity checking
>> for the patch.
>
> Honestly, I am pretty convinced patch 2 cannot make more harm as the
> block protection is already badly broken by not being described at
> all. Furthermore, for similar chips I have, these bits are relevant, so
> I would rather be in favour of going forward with patch 2, because at
> most it will just not fix the behaviour as it pretends it does.
>
> My 2cts :)
Hmm, okay, I'll apply that one too then.
--
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-30 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-18 14:35 [PATCH v2 0/3] mtd: spi-nor: winbond: Fix protection handling Eliav Farber
2026-02-18 14:35 ` Eliav Farber
2026-02-18 14:35 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] mtd: spi-nor: winbond: Fix locking support for w25q256jwm Eliav Farber
2026-02-18 14:35 ` Eliav Farber
2026-02-18 14:35 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mtd: spi-nor: winbond: Fix locking support for w25q256jw Eliav Farber
2026-02-18 14:35 ` Eliav Farber
2026-02-18 14:35 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] mtd: spi-nor: winbond: Fix locking support for w25q64jvm Eliav Farber
2026-02-18 14:35 ` Eliav Farber
2026-02-19 7:51 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] mtd: spi-nor: winbond: Fix protection handling Michael Walle
2026-02-19 7:51 ` Michael Walle
2026-02-19 8:59 ` Farber, Eliav
2026-02-19 8:59 ` Farber, Eliav
2026-02-19 9:05 ` Michael Walle
2026-02-19 9:05 ` Michael Walle
2026-03-30 14:10 ` Pratyush Yadav
2026-03-30 14:10 ` Pratyush Yadav
2026-03-30 14:22 ` Miquel Raynal
2026-03-30 14:22 ` Miquel Raynal
2026-03-30 14:59 ` Pratyush Yadav [this message]
2026-03-30 14:59 ` Pratyush Yadav
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=2vxzzf3picre.fsf@kernel.org \
--to=pratyush@kernel.org \
--cc=farbere@amazon.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
--cc=mwalle@kernel.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=tudor.ambarus@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.