[PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[AceLan Kao]

From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>

When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
software reset capabilities.

Signed-off-by: Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan) <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
---
v2. only lower the priority for the not supported failure
v3. replace ENOTSUPP with EOPNOTSUPP and check the first command only
v4. move the version information below the '---' line
---
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 5 ++++-
 drivers/spi/spi-mem.c      | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
index 1b0c6770c14e..42e52af76289 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
@@ -3252,7 +3252,10 @@ static void spi_nor_soft_reset(struct spi_nor *nor)
 
 	ret = spi_mem_exec_op(nor->spimem, &op);
 	if (ret) {
-		dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
+		if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
+			dev_info(nor->dev, "Software reset enable command doesn't support: %d\n", ret);
+		else
+			dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
 		return;
 	}
 
diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
index edd7430d4c05..93b77ac0b798 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ int spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op)
 		return ret;
 
 	if (!spi_mem_internal_supports_op(mem, op))
-		return -ENOTSUPP;
+		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
 
 	if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->exec_op && !spi_get_csgpiod(mem->spi, 0)) {
 		ret = spi_mem_access_start(mem);
-- 
2.34.1


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

[PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[AceLan Kao]

From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>

When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
software reset capabilities.

Signed-off-by: Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan) <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
---
v2. only lower the priority for the not supported failure
v3. replace ENOTSUPP with EOPNOTSUPP and check the first command only
v4. move the version information below the '---' line
---
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 5 ++++-
 drivers/spi/spi-mem.c      | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
index 1b0c6770c14e..42e52af76289 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
@@ -3252,7 +3252,10 @@ static void spi_nor_soft_reset(struct spi_nor *nor)
 
 	ret = spi_mem_exec_op(nor->spimem, &op);
 	if (ret) {
-		dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
+		if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
+			dev_info(nor->dev, "Software reset enable command doesn't support: %d\n", ret);
+		else
+			dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
 		return;
 	}
 
diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
index edd7430d4c05..93b77ac0b798 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ int spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op)
 		return ret;
 
 	if (!spi_mem_internal_supports_op(mem, op))
-		return -ENOTSUPP;
+		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
 
 	if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->exec_op && !spi_get_csgpiod(mem->spi, 0)) {
 		ret = spi_mem_access_start(mem);
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[Dhruva Gole]

On Oct 26, 2023 at 09:20:17 +0800, AceLan Kao wrote:
> From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
> 
> When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
> as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
> This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
> software reset capabilities.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan) <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
> ---
> v2. only lower the priority for the not supported failure
> v3. replace ENOTSUPP with EOPNOTSUPP and check the first command only
> v4. move the version information below the '---' line
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 5 ++++-
>  drivers/spi/spi-mem.c      | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> index 1b0c6770c14e..42e52af76289 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> @@ -3252,7 +3252,10 @@ static void spi_nor_soft_reset(struct spi_nor *nor)
>  
>  	ret = spi_mem_exec_op(nor->spimem, &op);
>  	if (ret) {
> -		dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
> +		if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> +			dev_info(nor->dev, "Software reset enable command doesn't support: %d\n", ret);

Does "Software reset command isn't supported:" make more sense?

> +		else
> +			dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> index edd7430d4c05..93b77ac0b798 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> @@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ int spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op)
>  		return ret;
>  
>  	if (!spi_mem_internal_supports_op(mem, op))
> -		return -ENOTSUPP;
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;

Reviewed-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>

>  
>  	if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->exec_op && !spi_get_csgpiod(mem->spi, 0)) {
>  		ret = spi_mem_access_start(mem);
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 
> 


-- 
Best regards,
Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>

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

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[Dhruva Gole]

On Oct 26, 2023 at 09:20:17 +0800, AceLan Kao wrote:
> From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
> 
> When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
> as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
> This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
> software reset capabilities.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan) <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
> ---
> v2. only lower the priority for the not supported failure
> v3. replace ENOTSUPP with EOPNOTSUPP and check the first command only
> v4. move the version information below the '---' line
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 5 ++++-
>  drivers/spi/spi-mem.c      | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> index 1b0c6770c14e..42e52af76289 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> @@ -3252,7 +3252,10 @@ static void spi_nor_soft_reset(struct spi_nor *nor)
>  
>  	ret = spi_mem_exec_op(nor->spimem, &op);
>  	if (ret) {
> -		dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
> +		if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> +			dev_info(nor->dev, "Software reset enable command doesn't support: %d\n", ret);

Does "Software reset command isn't supported:" make more sense?

> +		else
> +			dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> index edd7430d4c05..93b77ac0b798 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> @@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ int spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op)
>  		return ret;
>  
>  	if (!spi_mem_internal_supports_op(mem, op))
> -		return -ENOTSUPP;
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;

Reviewed-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>

>  
>  	if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->exec_op && !spi_get_csgpiod(mem->spi, 0)) {
>  		ret = spi_mem_access_start(mem);
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 
> 


-- 
Best regards,
Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[AceLan Kao]

Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com> 於 2023年10月26日 週四 下午2:11寫道：
>
> On Oct 26, 2023 at 09:20:17 +0800, AceLan Kao wrote:
> > From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
> >
> > When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
> > as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
> > This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
> > software reset capabilities.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan) <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
> > ---
> > v2. only lower the priority for the not supported failure
> > v3. replace ENOTSUPP with EOPNOTSUPP and check the first command only
> > v4. move the version information below the '---' line
> > ---
> >  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 5 ++++-
> >  drivers/spi/spi-mem.c      | 2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> > index 1b0c6770c14e..42e52af76289 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> > @@ -3252,7 +3252,10 @@ static void spi_nor_soft_reset(struct spi_nor *nor)
> >
> >       ret = spi_mem_exec_op(nor->spimem, &op);
> >       if (ret) {
> > -             dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
> > +             if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > +                     dev_info(nor->dev, "Software reset enable command doesn't support: %d\n", ret);
>
> Does "Software reset command isn't supported:" make more sense?
That's because the op is "software reset enable" command

#define SPINOR_OP_SRSTEN        0x66    /* Software Reset Enable */
#define SPINOR_SRSTEN_OP                                                \
          SPI_MEM_OP(SPI_MEM_OP_CMD(SPINOR_OP_SRSTEN, 0),                 \
                     SPI_MEM_OP_NO_DUMMY,                                 \
                     SPI_MEM_OP_NO_ADDR,                                  \
                     SPI_MEM_OP_NO_DATA)
op = (struct spi_mem_op)SPINOR_SRSTEN_OP;

>
> > +             else
> > +                     dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
> >               return;
> >       }
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> > index edd7430d4c05..93b77ac0b798 100644
> > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> > @@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ int spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op)
> >               return ret;
> >
> >       if (!spi_mem_internal_supports_op(mem, op))
> > -             return -ENOTSUPP;
> > +             return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> Reviewed-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
>
> >
> >       if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->exec_op && !spi_get_csgpiod(mem->spi, 0)) {
> >               ret = spi_mem_access_start(mem);
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>

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

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[AceLan Kao]

Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com> 於 2023年10月26日 週四 下午2:11寫道：
>
> On Oct 26, 2023 at 09:20:17 +0800, AceLan Kao wrote:
> > From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
> >
> > When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
> > as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
> > This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
> > software reset capabilities.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan) <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
> > ---
> > v2. only lower the priority for the not supported failure
> > v3. replace ENOTSUPP with EOPNOTSUPP and check the first command only
> > v4. move the version information below the '---' line
> > ---
> >  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 5 ++++-
> >  drivers/spi/spi-mem.c      | 2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> > index 1b0c6770c14e..42e52af76289 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> > @@ -3252,7 +3252,10 @@ static void spi_nor_soft_reset(struct spi_nor *nor)
> >
> >       ret = spi_mem_exec_op(nor->spimem, &op);
> >       if (ret) {
> > -             dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
> > +             if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > +                     dev_info(nor->dev, "Software reset enable command doesn't support: %d\n", ret);
>
> Does "Software reset command isn't supported:" make more sense?
That's because the op is "software reset enable" command

#define SPINOR_OP_SRSTEN        0x66    /* Software Reset Enable */
#define SPINOR_SRSTEN_OP                                                \
          SPI_MEM_OP(SPI_MEM_OP_CMD(SPINOR_OP_SRSTEN, 0),                 \
                     SPI_MEM_OP_NO_DUMMY,                                 \
                     SPI_MEM_OP_NO_ADDR,                                  \
                     SPI_MEM_OP_NO_DATA)
op = (struct spi_mem_op)SPINOR_SRSTEN_OP;

>
> > +             else
> > +                     dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
> >               return;
> >       }
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> > index edd7430d4c05..93b77ac0b798 100644
> > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> > @@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ int spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op)
> >               return ret;
> >
> >       if (!spi_mem_internal_supports_op(mem, op))
> > -             return -ENOTSUPP;
> > +             return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> Reviewed-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
>
> >
> >       if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->exec_op && !spi_get_csgpiod(mem->spi, 0)) {
> >               ret = spi_mem_access_start(mem);
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[Michael Walle]

Am 26. Oktober 2023 04:20:17 OESZ schrieb AceLan Kao <acelan.kao@canonical.com>:
>From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
>
>When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
>as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
>This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
>software reset capabilities.
>
>Signed-off-by: Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan) <acelan.kao@canonical.com>

NAK. You surely missed my comments on the previous version. 

-michael

>---
>v2. only lower the priority for the not supported failure
>v3. replace ENOTSUPP with EOPNOTSUPP and check the first command only
>v4. move the version information below the '---' line
>---
> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 5 ++++-
> drivers/spi/spi-mem.c      | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>index 1b0c6770c14e..42e52af76289 100644
>--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>@@ -3252,7 +3252,10 @@ static void spi_nor_soft_reset(struct spi_nor *nor)
> 
> 	ret = spi_mem_exec_op(nor->spimem, &op);
> 	if (ret) {
>-		dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
>+		if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
>+			dev_info(nor->dev, "Software reset enable command doesn't support: %d\n", ret);
>+		else
>+			dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
> 		return;
> 	}
> 
>diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
>index edd7430d4c05..93b77ac0b798 100644
>--- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
>+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
>@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ int spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op)
> 		return ret;
> 
> 	if (!spi_mem_internal_supports_op(mem, op))
>-		return -ENOTSUPP;
>+		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> 
> 	if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->exec_op && !spi_get_csgpiod(mem->spi, 0)) {
> 		ret = spi_mem_access_start(mem);


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

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[Michael Walle]

Am 26. Oktober 2023 04:20:17 OESZ schrieb AceLan Kao <acelan.kao@canonical.com>:
>From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
>
>When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
>as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
>This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
>software reset capabilities.
>
>Signed-off-by: Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan) <acelan.kao@canonical.com>

NAK. You surely missed my comments on the previous version. 

-michael

>---
>v2. only lower the priority for the not supported failure
>v3. replace ENOTSUPP with EOPNOTSUPP and check the first command only
>v4. move the version information below the '---' line
>---
> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 5 ++++-
> drivers/spi/spi-mem.c      | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>index 1b0c6770c14e..42e52af76289 100644
>--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
>@@ -3252,7 +3252,10 @@ static void spi_nor_soft_reset(struct spi_nor *nor)
> 
> 	ret = spi_mem_exec_op(nor->spimem, &op);
> 	if (ret) {
>-		dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
>+		if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
>+			dev_info(nor->dev, "Software reset enable command doesn't support: %d\n", ret);
>+		else
>+			dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
> 		return;
> 	}
> 
>diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
>index edd7430d4c05..93b77ac0b798 100644
>--- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
>+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
>@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ int spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op)
> 		return ret;
> 
> 	if (!spi_mem_internal_supports_op(mem, op))
>-		return -ENOTSUPP;
>+		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> 
> 	if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->exec_op && !spi_get_csgpiod(mem->spi, 0)) {
> 		ret = spi_mem_access_start(mem);

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[AceLan Kao]

Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> 於 2023年10月26日 週四 下午2:28寫道：
>
> Am 26. Oktober 2023 04:20:17 OESZ schrieb AceLan Kao <acelan.kao@canonical.com>:
> >From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
> >
> >When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
> >as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
> >This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
> >software reset capabilities.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan) <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
>
> NAK. You surely missed my comments on the previous version.

Hi Michael,

It's strange that I didn't receive your first reply, and I just
checked it from web archive[1].
I quote your opinions and reply them below.

> It bothers me that we use ENOTSUPP here. We should really use
>
> EOPNOTSUPP.
> The core uses EOPNOTSUPP everywhere except for the intel things.
>
> Please have a look at changing that to EOPNOTSUPP. See also:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/85f9c462-c155-dc17-dc97-3254acfa55d2@microchip.com/
Yes, this has been done in v3

> I'm not sure this is helpful. It's only the intel SPI controller which
> does magic things (instead of just issuing our commands). Mika, do you
> know wether your controller will do a reset on it's own? I presume so,
> because AFAIR you have some kind of high level controller which also
> does
> SFDP parsing and read opcode handling on their own.
Mika's replied you,
and I think even if intel SPI controller do the magic things, the
error message is still annoying.

> I'd leave that as is, because how are the chances that the first one is
> supported and the second command, isn't?
> When working with the intel controller, we'll return early after the
> first spi_mem_exec_op().
Yes, this has been done in v3.

And then I checked again and found you have replied[2] the v3 patch
and I still didn't recevie that one, too.
Now I got your point, will revise my patch and submit v5 soon.
Thanks.

1. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231024074332.462741-1-acelan.kao@canonical.com/T/#m7e5e7872151a913d5fe274fc20b7981bd10dd09f
2. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231025030501.490355-1-acelan.kao@canonical.com/T/#u
>
> -michael
>
> >---
> >v2. only lower the priority for the not supported failure
> >v3. replace ENOTSUPP with EOPNOTSUPP and check the first command only
> >v4. move the version information below the '---' line
> >---
> > drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 5 ++++-
> > drivers/spi/spi-mem.c      | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> >index 1b0c6770c14e..42e52af76289 100644
> >--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> >+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> >@@ -3252,7 +3252,10 @@ static void spi_nor_soft_reset(struct spi_nor *nor)
> >
> >       ret = spi_mem_exec_op(nor->spimem, &op);
> >       if (ret) {
> >-              dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
> >+              if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> >+                      dev_info(nor->dev, "Software reset enable command doesn't support: %d\n", ret);
> >+              else
> >+                      dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
> >               return;
> >       }
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> >index edd7430d4c05..93b77ac0b798 100644
> >--- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> >+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> >@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ int spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op)
> >               return ret;
> >
> >       if (!spi_mem_internal_supports_op(mem, op))
> >-              return -ENOTSUPP;
> >+              return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >
> >       if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->exec_op && !spi_get_csgpiod(mem->spi, 0)) {
> >               ret = spi_mem_access_start(mem);
>

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

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[AceLan Kao]

Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> 於 2023年10月26日 週四 下午2:28寫道：
>
> Am 26. Oktober 2023 04:20:17 OESZ schrieb AceLan Kao <acelan.kao@canonical.com>:
> >From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
> >
> >When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
> >as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
> >This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
> >software reset capabilities.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan) <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
>
> NAK. You surely missed my comments on the previous version.

Hi Michael,

It's strange that I didn't receive your first reply, and I just
checked it from web archive[1].
I quote your opinions and reply them below.

> It bothers me that we use ENOTSUPP here. We should really use
>
> EOPNOTSUPP.
> The core uses EOPNOTSUPP everywhere except for the intel things.
>
> Please have a look at changing that to EOPNOTSUPP. See also:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/85f9c462-c155-dc17-dc97-3254acfa55d2@microchip.com/
Yes, this has been done in v3

> I'm not sure this is helpful. It's only the intel SPI controller which
> does magic things (instead of just issuing our commands). Mika, do you
> know wether your controller will do a reset on it's own? I presume so,
> because AFAIR you have some kind of high level controller which also
> does
> SFDP parsing and read opcode handling on their own.
Mika's replied you,
and I think even if intel SPI controller do the magic things, the
error message is still annoying.

> I'd leave that as is, because how are the chances that the first one is
> supported and the second command, isn't?
> When working with the intel controller, we'll return early after the
> first spi_mem_exec_op().
Yes, this has been done in v3.

And then I checked again and found you have replied[2] the v3 patch
and I still didn't recevie that one, too.
Now I got your point, will revise my patch and submit v5 soon.
Thanks.

1. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231024074332.462741-1-acelan.kao@canonical.com/T/#m7e5e7872151a913d5fe274fc20b7981bd10dd09f
2. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231025030501.490355-1-acelan.kao@canonical.com/T/#u
>
> -michael
>
> >---
> >v2. only lower the priority for the not supported failure
> >v3. replace ENOTSUPP with EOPNOTSUPP and check the first command only
> >v4. move the version information below the '---' line
> >---
> > drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 5 ++++-
> > drivers/spi/spi-mem.c      | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> >index 1b0c6770c14e..42e52af76289 100644
> >--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> >+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> >@@ -3252,7 +3252,10 @@ static void spi_nor_soft_reset(struct spi_nor *nor)
> >
> >       ret = spi_mem_exec_op(nor->spimem, &op);
> >       if (ret) {
> >-              dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
> >+              if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> >+                      dev_info(nor->dev, "Software reset enable command doesn't support: %d\n", ret);
> >+              else
> >+                      dev_warn(nor->dev, "Software reset failed: %d\n", ret);
> >               return;
> >       }
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> >index edd7430d4c05..93b77ac0b798 100644
> >--- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> >+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
> >@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ int spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op)
> >               return ret;
> >
> >       if (!spi_mem_internal_supports_op(mem, op))
> >-              return -ENOTSUPP;
> >+              return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >
> >       if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->exec_op && !spi_get_csgpiod(mem->spi, 0)) {
> >               ret = spi_mem_access_start(mem);
>

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[Pratyush Yadav]

On Thu, Oct 26 2023, AceLan Kao wrote:

> From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
>
> When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
> as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
> This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
> software reset capabilities.

I still think the soft reset command deserves a warn, and not an info.
Because it _is_ a bad thing if you need to soft reset and are unable to
do so. Your bootloader (or linux if you rmmod and modprobe again) might
not be able to detect the flash mode and operate it properly.

I think we should just not unconditionally run this and instead only
call it when the flash reset is not connected -- that is only call this
under a check for SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET, like we do for 4-byte addressing
mode.

I don't have a strong opposition to this patch but I do think it is
fixing the problem in the wrong place.

[...]

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav

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

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[Pratyush Yadav]

On Thu, Oct 26 2023, AceLan Kao wrote:

> From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
>
> When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
> as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
> This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
> software reset capabilities.

I still think the soft reset command deserves a warn, and not an info.
Because it _is_ a bad thing if you need to soft reset and are unable to
do so. Your bootloader (or linux if you rmmod and modprobe again) might
not be able to detect the flash mode and operate it properly.

I think we should just not unconditionally run this and instead only
call it when the flash reset is not connected -- that is only call this
under a check for SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET, like we do for 4-byte addressing
mode.

I don't have a strong opposition to this patch but I do think it is
fixing the problem in the wrong place.

[...]

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[Michael Walle]

Am 26. Oktober 2023 16:39:54 OESZ schrieb Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>:
>On Thu, Oct 26 2023, AceLan Kao wrote:
>
>> From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
>>
>> When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
>> as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
>> This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
>> software reset capabilities.
>
>I still think the soft reset command deserves a warn, and not an info.
>Because it _is_ a bad thing if you need to soft reset and are unable to
>do so. Your bootloader (or linux if you rmmod and modprobe again) might
>not be able to detect the flash mode and operate it properly. 

agreed.. but.. 

>I think we should just not unconditionally run this and instead only
>call it when the flash reset is not connected -- that is only call this
>under a check for SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET, like we do for 4-byte addressing
>mode.

.. keep in mind that this is a restriction of the flash controller. the Intel one seems to be the only affected one (for now) and it's doing a reset (according to mika) on its own. 

snor_broken_reset is a property of the flash. 


>I don't have a strong opposition to this patch but I do think it is
>fixing the problem in the wrong place.

if the flash controller doesn't let you issue a soft reset (or does so on its own), what's the fix?

-michael 


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

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[Michael Walle]

Am 26. Oktober 2023 16:39:54 OESZ schrieb Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>:
>On Thu, Oct 26 2023, AceLan Kao wrote:
>
>> From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
>>
>> When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
>> as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
>> This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
>> software reset capabilities.
>
>I still think the soft reset command deserves a warn, and not an info.
>Because it _is_ a bad thing if you need to soft reset and are unable to
>do so. Your bootloader (or linux if you rmmod and modprobe again) might
>not be able to detect the flash mode and operate it properly. 

agreed.. but.. 

>I think we should just not unconditionally run this and instead only
>call it when the flash reset is not connected -- that is only call this
>under a check for SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET, like we do for 4-byte addressing
>mode.

.. keep in mind that this is a restriction of the flash controller. the Intel one seems to be the only affected one (for now) and it's doing a reset (according to mika) on its own. 

snor_broken_reset is a property of the flash. 


>I don't have a strong opposition to this patch but I do think it is
>fixing the problem in the wrong place.

if the flash controller doesn't let you issue a soft reset (or does so on its own), what's the fix?

-michael 

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[Pratyush Yadav]

On Thu, Oct 26 2023, Michael Walle wrote:

> Am 26. Oktober 2023 16:39:54 OESZ schrieb Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>:
>>On Thu, Oct 26 2023, AceLan Kao wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
>>>
>>> When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
>>> as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
>>> This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
>>> software reset capabilities.
>>
>>I still think the soft reset command deserves a warn, and not an info.
>>Because it _is_ a bad thing if you need to soft reset and are unable to
>>do so. Your bootloader (or linux if you rmmod and modprobe again) might
>>not be able to detect the flash mode and operate it properly. 
>
> agreed.. but.. 
>
>>I think we should just not unconditionally run this and instead only
>>call it when the flash reset is not connected -- that is only call this
>>under a check for SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET, like we do for 4-byte addressing
>>mode.
>
> .. keep in mind that this is a restriction of the flash controller. the Intel one seems to be the only affected one (for now) and it's doing a reset (according to mika) on its own. 
>
> snor_broken_reset is a property of the flash. 

The documentation for the property says:

  broken-flash-reset:
    type: boolean
    description:
      Some flash devices utilize stateful addressing modes (e.g., for 32-bit
      addressing) which need to be managed carefully by a system. Because these
      sorts of flash don't have a standardized software reset command, and
      because some systems don't toggle the flash RESET# pin upon system reset
      (if the pin even exists at all), there are systems which cannot reboot
      properly if the flash is left in the "wrong" state. This boolean flag can
      be used on such systems, to denote the absence of a reliable reset
      mechanism.

So it is more a property of the system as a whole perhaps.

>
>
>>I don't have a strong opposition to this patch but I do think it is
>>fixing the problem in the wrong place.
>
> if the flash controller doesn't let you issue a soft reset (or does so on its own), what's the fix?

I think in those cases we could inquire the controller if it can do a
soft reset (probably via spi_mem_supports_op()). If it can not do so
_and_ the flash reset is broken, refuse to enter stateful modes like
8D-8D-8D or 4-byte addressing.

We already do so for the broken reset thing in
spi_nor_spimem_adjust_hwcaps():

	/*
	 * If the reset line is broken, we do not want to enter a stateful
	 * mode.
	 */
	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET)
		*hwcaps &= ~(SNOR_HWCAPS_X_X_X | SNOR_HWCAPS_X_X_X_DTR);

We should probably also add a spi_nor_spimem_can_soft_reset() (function
doesn't exist as of now -- just using an example name) check here.

Note: This restriction is placed only for X-X-X modes, and not 4-byte
addressing mode, which is an inconsistency on SPI NOR's part. See below.

Alternatively, if we are more willing to let users shoot themselves in
the foot if they so wish, we can just throw a warning that you might not
be able to recover, like we do in spi_nor_init():

	/*
	 * If the RESET# pin isn't hooked up properly, or the system
	 * otherwise doesn't perform a reset command in the boot
	 * sequence, it's impossible to 100% protect against unexpected
	 * reboots (e.g., crashes). Warn the user (or hopefully, system
	 * designer) that this is bad.
	 */
	WARN_ONCE(nor->flags & SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET,
		  "enabling reset hack; may not recover from unexpected reboots\n");
	err = spi_nor_set_4byte_addr_mode(nor, true);

In that case, we would only run spi_nor_soft_reset() if the reset is
broken and let the user deal with the consequences if it fails.

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav

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

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[Pratyush Yadav]

On Thu, Oct 26 2023, Michael Walle wrote:

> Am 26. Oktober 2023 16:39:54 OESZ schrieb Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>:
>>On Thu, Oct 26 2023, AceLan Kao wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
>>>
>>> When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
>>> as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a warning(dev_warn).
>>> This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion regarding
>>> software reset capabilities.
>>
>>I still think the soft reset command deserves a warn, and not an info.
>>Because it _is_ a bad thing if you need to soft reset and are unable to
>>do so. Your bootloader (or linux if you rmmod and modprobe again) might
>>not be able to detect the flash mode and operate it properly. 
>
> agreed.. but.. 
>
>>I think we should just not unconditionally run this and instead only
>>call it when the flash reset is not connected -- that is only call this
>>under a check for SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET, like we do for 4-byte addressing
>>mode.
>
> .. keep in mind that this is a restriction of the flash controller. the Intel one seems to be the only affected one (for now) and it's doing a reset (according to mika) on its own. 
>
> snor_broken_reset is a property of the flash. 

The documentation for the property says:

  broken-flash-reset:
    type: boolean
    description:
      Some flash devices utilize stateful addressing modes (e.g., for 32-bit
      addressing) which need to be managed carefully by a system. Because these
      sorts of flash don't have a standardized software reset command, and
      because some systems don't toggle the flash RESET# pin upon system reset
      (if the pin even exists at all), there are systems which cannot reboot
      properly if the flash is left in the "wrong" state. This boolean flag can
      be used on such systems, to denote the absence of a reliable reset
      mechanism.

So it is more a property of the system as a whole perhaps.

>
>
>>I don't have a strong opposition to this patch but I do think it is
>>fixing the problem in the wrong place.
>
> if the flash controller doesn't let you issue a soft reset (or does so on its own), what's the fix?

I think in those cases we could inquire the controller if it can do a
soft reset (probably via spi_mem_supports_op()). If it can not do so
_and_ the flash reset is broken, refuse to enter stateful modes like
8D-8D-8D or 4-byte addressing.

We already do so for the broken reset thing in
spi_nor_spimem_adjust_hwcaps():

	/*
	 * If the reset line is broken, we do not want to enter a stateful
	 * mode.
	 */
	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET)
		*hwcaps &= ~(SNOR_HWCAPS_X_X_X | SNOR_HWCAPS_X_X_X_DTR);

We should probably also add a spi_nor_spimem_can_soft_reset() (function
doesn't exist as of now -- just using an example name) check here.

Note: This restriction is placed only for X-X-X modes, and not 4-byte
addressing mode, which is an inconsistency on SPI NOR's part. See below.

Alternatively, if we are more willing to let users shoot themselves in
the foot if they so wish, we can just throw a warning that you might not
be able to recover, like we do in spi_nor_init():

	/*
	 * If the RESET# pin isn't hooked up properly, or the system
	 * otherwise doesn't perform a reset command in the boot
	 * sequence, it's impossible to 100% protect against unexpected
	 * reboots (e.g., crashes). Warn the user (or hopefully, system
	 * designer) that this is bad.
	 */
	WARN_ONCE(nor->flags & SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET,
		  "enabling reset hack; may not recover from unexpected reboots\n");
	err = spi_nor_set_4byte_addr_mode(nor, true);

In that case, we would only run spi_nor_soft_reset() if the reset is
broken and let the user deal with the consequences if it fails.

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[Michael Walle]

>>>> When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
>>>> as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a 
>>>> warning(dev_warn).
>>>> This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion 
>>>> regarding
>>>> software reset capabilities.
>>> 
>>> I still think the soft reset command deserves a warn, and not an 
>>> info.
>>> Because it _is_ a bad thing if you need to soft reset and are unable 
>>> to
>>> do so. Your bootloader (or linux if you rmmod and modprobe again) 
>>> might
>>> not be able to detect the flash mode and operate it properly.
>> 
>> agreed.. but..
>> 
>>> I think we should just not unconditionally run this and instead only
>>> call it when the flash reset is not connected -- that is only call 
>>> this
>>> under a check for SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET, like we do for 4-byte 
>>> addressing
>>> mode.
>> 
>> .. keep in mind that this is a restriction of the flash controller. 
>> the Intel one seems to be the only affected one (for now) and it's 
>> doing a reset (according to mika) on its own.
>> 
>> snor_broken_reset is a property of the flash.
> 
> The documentation for the property says:
> 
>   broken-flash-reset:
>     type: boolean
>     description:
>       Some flash devices utilize stateful addressing modes (e.g., for 
> 32-bit
>       addressing) which need to be managed carefully by a system. 
> Because these
>       sorts of flash don't have a standardized software reset command, 
> and
>       because some systems don't toggle the flash RESET# pin upon 
> system reset
>       (if the pin even exists at all), there are systems which cannot 
> reboot
>       properly if the flash is left in the "wrong" state. This boolean 
> flag can
>       be used on such systems, to denote the absence of a reliable 
> reset
>       mechanism.

But still, this property is a child of the flash node. Anyway, we cannot
force a user to change their DTS, just to avoid that (spurious) warning 
in
this case.

Also, we don't *have* to change the DTS because we know that it is a
property of the spi driver anyway. So we could just ask it.

> So it is more a property of the system as a whole perhaps.
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I don't have a strong opposition to this patch but I do think it is
>>> fixing the problem in the wrong place.
>> 
>> if the flash controller doesn't let you issue a soft reset (or does so 
>> on its own), what's the fix?
> 
> I think in those cases we could inquire the controller if it can do a
> soft reset (probably via spi_mem_supports_op()). If it can not do so
> _and_ the flash reset is broken, refuse to enter stateful modes like
> 8D-8D-8D or 4-byte addressing.

Mh, I tend to agree but see some drawbacks. What cases do we have.

For the controller:
  (1) Just a regular/dumb spi controller where the commands are somewhat
      opaque. That's the usual case.
  (2) We have some kind of high level controller which just allows a 
subset
      of commands but also do it's own handling, esp. bring the reset 
into a
      known state on bootup/reset.

For the flash:
  (a) The flash has a dedicated reset line
  (b) The flash doesn't have a dedicated reset line, but supports s/w 
reset
  (c) none of the above

(b) will also always just be a best effort thing. What if there is a 
hardware
reset and linux doesn't get to call the soft reset on shutdown. So I'd 
treat
(b) the same as (c). Except that we enter 4byte addressing mode even if 
the
flash doesn't have a reset line. I don't know if we can change this 
behavior
at this point. Might break some boards.

Let's start with the easy one (1a). The DT shouldn't contain the broken 
flash
reset property, but because there is a proper reset line we can just 
enter
stateful modes. Now we have (1c) where we cannot enter stateful modes, 
but
we do for the 4byte addressing mode (correct?). And as a workaround we 
try
our best to disable that mode (by disabling the mode and by doing a soft
reset).

If I understand you correctly, you suggest to keep the current behavior 
for
just (1b) and refuse any modes for (1c). I tend to disagree, because how 
useful
is the flash if it cannot enter 4byte mode (and doesn't have 4b 
opcodes). I'd
argue it's useless :) Or at least it is really unexpected that we can 
just
address the first 16MiB, and bad things will probably happen if 
partitions
go beyond that boundary.

That leaves us with (2). I don't thing we should do anything specific 
here
unless there is a real problem and let the controller handle all the 
cases
for us. Mika confirmed, that the intel controller will do the handling.
By just looking whether the controller might support the soft-reset 
operation,
we cannot know if we will have a problem on reboots or not. Maybe that
controller will issue the "get me out of 8d8d8d" sequence on it's own.
Therefore, the query to the SPI controller should rather be, "do we need
a soft reset at all" - or can we enter stateful modes without caring on 
how
to exit them.

-michael

> We already do so for the broken reset thing in
> spi_nor_spimem_adjust_hwcaps():
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * If the reset line is broken, we do not want to enter a stateful
> 	 * mode.
> 	 */
> 	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET)
> 		*hwcaps &= ~(SNOR_HWCAPS_X_X_X | SNOR_HWCAPS_X_X_X_DTR);
> 
> We should probably also add a spi_nor_spimem_can_soft_reset() (function
> doesn't exist as of now -- just using an example name) check here.
> 
> Note: This restriction is placed only for X-X-X modes, and not 4-byte
> addressing mode, which is an inconsistency on SPI NOR's part. See 
> below.
> 
> Alternatively, if we are more willing to let users shoot themselves in
> the foot if they so wish, we can just throw a warning that you might 
> not
> be able to recover, like we do in spi_nor_init():
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * If the RESET# pin isn't hooked up properly, or the system
> 	 * otherwise doesn't perform a reset command in the boot
> 	 * sequence, it's impossible to 100% protect against unexpected
> 	 * reboots (e.g., crashes). Warn the user (or hopefully, system
> 	 * designer) that this is bad.
> 	 */
> 	WARN_ONCE(nor->flags & SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET,
> 		  "enabling reset hack; may not recover from unexpected reboots\n");
> 	err = spi_nor_set_4byte_addr_mode(nor, true);
> 
> In that case, we would only run spi_nor_soft_reset() if the reset is
> broken and let the user deal with the consequences if it fails.

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

Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Improve reporting for software reset failures

[Michael Walle]

>>>> When the software reset command isn't supported, we now report it
>>>> as an informational message(dev_info) instead of a 
>>>> warning(dev_warn).
>>>> This adjustment helps avoid unnecessary alarm and confusion 
>>>> regarding
>>>> software reset capabilities.
>>> 
>>> I still think the soft reset command deserves a warn, and not an 
>>> info.
>>> Because it _is_ a bad thing if you need to soft reset and are unable 
>>> to
>>> do so. Your bootloader (or linux if you rmmod and modprobe again) 
>>> might
>>> not be able to detect the flash mode and operate it properly.
>> 
>> agreed.. but..
>> 
>>> I think we should just not unconditionally run this and instead only
>>> call it when the flash reset is not connected -- that is only call 
>>> this
>>> under a check for SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET, like we do for 4-byte 
>>> addressing
>>> mode.
>> 
>> .. keep in mind that this is a restriction of the flash controller. 
>> the Intel one seems to be the only affected one (for now) and it's 
>> doing a reset (according to mika) on its own.
>> 
>> snor_broken_reset is a property of the flash.
> 
> The documentation for the property says:
> 
>   broken-flash-reset:
>     type: boolean
>     description:
>       Some flash devices utilize stateful addressing modes (e.g., for 
> 32-bit
>       addressing) which need to be managed carefully by a system. 
> Because these
>       sorts of flash don't have a standardized software reset command, 
> and
>       because some systems don't toggle the flash RESET# pin upon 
> system reset
>       (if the pin even exists at all), there are systems which cannot 
> reboot
>       properly if the flash is left in the "wrong" state. This boolean 
> flag can
>       be used on such systems, to denote the absence of a reliable 
> reset
>       mechanism.

But still, this property is a child of the flash node. Anyway, we cannot
force a user to change their DTS, just to avoid that (spurious) warning 
in
this case.

Also, we don't *have* to change the DTS because we know that it is a
property of the spi driver anyway. So we could just ask it.

> So it is more a property of the system as a whole perhaps.
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I don't have a strong opposition to this patch but I do think it is
>>> fixing the problem in the wrong place.
>> 
>> if the flash controller doesn't let you issue a soft reset (or does so 
>> on its own), what's the fix?
> 
> I think in those cases we could inquire the controller if it can do a
> soft reset (probably via spi_mem_supports_op()). If it can not do so
> _and_ the flash reset is broken, refuse to enter stateful modes like
> 8D-8D-8D or 4-byte addressing.

Mh, I tend to agree but see some drawbacks. What cases do we have.

For the controller:
  (1) Just a regular/dumb spi controller where the commands are somewhat
      opaque. That's the usual case.
  (2) We have some kind of high level controller which just allows a 
subset
      of commands but also do it's own handling, esp. bring the reset 
into a
      known state on bootup/reset.

For the flash:
  (a) The flash has a dedicated reset line
  (b) The flash doesn't have a dedicated reset line, but supports s/w 
reset
  (c) none of the above

(b) will also always just be a best effort thing. What if there is a 
hardware
reset and linux doesn't get to call the soft reset on shutdown. So I'd 
treat
(b) the same as (c). Except that we enter 4byte addressing mode even if 
the
flash doesn't have a reset line. I don't know if we can change this 
behavior
at this point. Might break some boards.

Let's start with the easy one (1a). The DT shouldn't contain the broken 
flash
reset property, but because there is a proper reset line we can just 
enter
stateful modes. Now we have (1c) where we cannot enter stateful modes, 
but
we do for the 4byte addressing mode (correct?). And as a workaround we 
try
our best to disable that mode (by disabling the mode and by doing a soft
reset).

If I understand you correctly, you suggest to keep the current behavior 
for
just (1b) and refuse any modes for (1c). I tend to disagree, because how 
useful
is the flash if it cannot enter 4byte mode (and doesn't have 4b 
opcodes). I'd
argue it's useless :) Or at least it is really unexpected that we can 
just
address the first 16MiB, and bad things will probably happen if 
partitions
go beyond that boundary.

That leaves us with (2). I don't thing we should do anything specific 
here
unless there is a real problem and let the controller handle all the 
cases
for us. Mika confirmed, that the intel controller will do the handling.
By just looking whether the controller might support the soft-reset 
operation,
we cannot know if we will have a problem on reboots or not. Maybe that
controller will issue the "get me out of 8d8d8d" sequence on it's own.
Therefore, the query to the SPI controller should rather be, "do we need
a soft reset at all" - or can we enter stateful modes without caring on 
how
to exit them.

-michael

> We already do so for the broken reset thing in
> spi_nor_spimem_adjust_hwcaps():
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * If the reset line is broken, we do not want to enter a stateful
> 	 * mode.
> 	 */
> 	if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET)
> 		*hwcaps &= ~(SNOR_HWCAPS_X_X_X | SNOR_HWCAPS_X_X_X_DTR);
> 
> We should probably also add a spi_nor_spimem_can_soft_reset() (function
> doesn't exist as of now -- just using an example name) check here.
> 
> Note: This restriction is placed only for X-X-X modes, and not 4-byte
> addressing mode, which is an inconsistency on SPI NOR's part. See 
> below.
> 
> Alternatively, if we are more willing to let users shoot themselves in
> the foot if they so wish, we can just throw a warning that you might 
> not
> be able to recover, like we do in spi_nor_init():
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * If the RESET# pin isn't hooked up properly, or the system
> 	 * otherwise doesn't perform a reset command in the boot
> 	 * sequence, it's impossible to 100% protect against unexpected
> 	 * reboots (e.g., crashes). Warn the user (or hopefully, system
> 	 * designer) that this is bad.
> 	 */
> 	WARN_ONCE(nor->flags & SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET,
> 		  "enabling reset hack; may not recover from unexpected reboots\n");
> 	err = spi_nor_set_4byte_addr_mode(nor, true);
> 
> In that case, we would only run spi_nor_soft_reset() if the reset is
> broken and let the user deal with the consequences if it fails.