Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mtd: spi-nor: atmel: remove global SNOR_F_HAS_LOCK

[Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>]

Am 2020-10-01 16:25, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com:
> On 10/1/20 5:12 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know 
>> the content is safe
>> 
>> Am 2020-10-01 16:06, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com:
>>> On 10/1/20 3:28 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you 
>>>> know
>>>> the content is safe
>>>> 
>>>> This is considered bad for the following reasons:
>>>>  (1) We only support the block protection with BPn bits for write
>>>>      protection. Not all Atmel 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 don'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:
>>>>  - AT26F004
>>>>  - AT25SL321
>>>>  - AT45DB081D
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/atmel.c | 28 +++++++++-------------------
>>>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/atmel.c 
>>>> b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/atmel.c
>>>> index 3f5f21a473a6..49d392c6c8bc 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/atmel.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/atmel.c
>>>> @@ -10,37 +10,27 @@
>>>> 
>>>>  static const struct flash_info atmel_parts[] = {
>>>>         /* Atmel -- some are (confusingly) marketed as "DataFlash" 
>>>> */
>>>> -       { "at25fs010",  INFO(0x1f6601, 0, 32 * 1024,   4, SECT_4K) 
>>>> },
>>>> -       { "at25fs040",  INFO(0x1f6604, 0, 64 * 1024,   8, SECT_4K) 
>>>> },
>>>> +       { "at25fs010",  INFO(0x1f6601, 0, 32 * 1024,   4, SECT_4K |
>>>> SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
>>>> +       { "at25fs040",  INFO(0x1f6604, 0, 64 * 1024,   8, SECT_4K |
>>>> SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
>>> 
>>> after a quick look in the datasheets of these flashes, I suspect that
>>> what we have now in the SPI NOR core for SR locking does not work for
>>> them. They probably supported just "unlock all", clearing all the
>>> BP bits. Anyway, different problem.
>>>> 
>>>> -       { "at25df041a", INFO(0x1f4401, 0, 64 * 1024,   8, SECT_4K) 
>>>> },
>>>> -       { "at25df321",  INFO(0x1f4700, 0, 64 * 1024,  64, SECT_4K) 
>>>> },
>>>> -       { "at25df321a", INFO(0x1f4701, 0, 64 * 1024,  64, SECT_4K) 
>>>> },
>>>> -       { "at25df641",  INFO(0x1f4800, 0, 64 * 1024, 128, SECT_4K) 
>>>> },
>>>> +       { "at25df041a", INFO(0x1f4401, 0, 64 * 1024,   8, SECT_4K |
>>>> SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
>>> 
>>> this one does not support BP locking:
>>> https://www.adestotech.com/wp-content/uploads/doc3668.pdf
>>> 
>>>> +       { "at25df321",  INFO(0x1f4700, 0, 64 * 1024,  64, SECT_4K |
>>>> SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
>>> 
>>> neither this one:
>>> https://datasheet.octopart.com/AT25DF321-S3U-Atmel-datasheet-8700896.pdf
>>> 
>>>> +       { "at25df321a", INFO(0x1f4701, 0, 64 * 1024,  64, SECT_4K |
>>>> SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
>>> 
>>> nor this one: 
>>> https://www.adestotech.com/wp-content/uploads/doc3686.pdf
>>> 
>>>> +       { "at25df641",  INFO(0x1f4800, 0, 64 * 1024, 128, SECT_4K |
>>>> SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
>>> 
>>> nor this one: 
>>> https://www.adestotech.com/wp-content/uploads/doc3680.pdf
>>> 
>>> I stop here.
>> 
>> These are all the ones which use the global unlock. I cannot just skip
>> the HAS_LOCK bit here, because otherwise this patch wouldn't be
>> backwards
>> compatibe. Yes I missed that in the commit log, my bad.
>> 
> 
> No worries.
> 
> "unlock all at boot" just cleared the SR bits. Clearing the SR bits 
> unlocks
> these flashes?

Clearing bits 5,4,3,2, yes (with SPRL=0)

   Conversely, to perform a Global Unprotect, the same WP and SPRL 
conditions
   must be met but the system must write a Logical 0 to bits 5, 4, 3, and 
2
   of the first byte of the Status Register.

This will hopefully be cleaned up by my "mtd: spi-nor: keep lock bits if 
they
are non-volatile" patch.

-michael

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel