From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from majordomo by infradead.org with local (Exim 3.20 #2) id 14GoQz-0000Ez-00 for mtd-list@infradead.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:34:57 +0000 Message-ID: <3A5E19BB.B6F06694@mvista.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:38:19 -0800 From: Alice Hennessy MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Woodhouse CC: mtd@infradead.org, ahennessy@mvista.com Subject: Re: LOCK and UNLOCK functions References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-mtd@infradead.org List-ID: David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Alice Hennessy wrote: > > > 1. It doesn't appear to me that suspend affects the locking and > > unlocking flowcharts - only program and erase. Is this a correct > > assumption? > > What do you mean? Suspend affects everything, because we're about to turn > off the chip (the oldstate stuff is a thinko). If we're in the middle of > telling the chip to lock/unlock then suspend has return failure till we're > finished. I was referring to the "Block Erase, Program Suspend" command in the STRATA spec and was wondering if I need to add checking for FL_LOCKING in do_read_onechip() as we do for FL_ERASING. Should have been more specific :) BTW: what does "thinko" mean? > > > > 2. The mtdchar.c ioctl call for MEMUNLOCK passes the start and len > > addresses. The unlock for the STRATA clears all the lock bits. So I > > intend to include logic to reinstate the locked bits that are outside > > the desired range. Sound reasonable? > > Hmmm. Better to design the API better so it can describe the capabilities > of the chip. You don't have to stick to what I threw together - I'm full > of crap half the time. Hadn't you realised that yet? Then my choice would be to keep it simple and let userland keep track of what lock bits it has set in the past. Alice > > > -- > dwmw2 To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org