Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] mtd: spi-nor: add the framework for SPI NOR

[Sourav Poddar <sourav.poddar-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>]

On Tuesday 17 December 2013 08:26 AM, Huang Shijie wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:11:58AM +0530, Sourav Poddar wrote:
>>> +static int spi_nor_read(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from, size_t len,
>>> +			size_t *retlen, u_char *buf)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct spi_nor *nor = mtd_to_spi_nor(mtd);
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +
>>> +	dev_dbg(nor->dev, "from 0x%08x, len %zd\n", (u32)from, len);
>>> +
>>> +	ret = spi_nor_lock_and_prep(nor, SPI_NOR_OPS_READ);
>>> +	if (ret)
>>> +		return ret;
>>> +
>>> +	/* Wait till previous write/erase is done. */
>>> +	ret = wait_till_ready(nor);
>>> +	if (ret)
>>> +		goto read_err;
>>> +
>> Can you shift "wait_till_ready" above spi_nor_lock_and_prep?
>> One usecase for asking for above change is that I am planning to
>> use this _prep api for switching to memory mapped mode for read and once
>> I am switched to mmap mode, read_sr calls in wait_till_ready will not
>> work for me.
>>
> you can implement your own wait_till_ready here.
I think no point doing this, since it does the same function for me.
> Only we have grabbed the lock, then we can do the transactions with the NOR.
>
> We can not call the wait_till_ready before we grab the lock, it is wrong.
>
>
> If you really can not implement your own wait_till_ready, the final solution
> is removing the wait_till_ready in this function, and add the wait_till_ready
> in the nor->read() hook.
>

Yes, this can be done. So, that if you want to do memcpy do it before this
condition is hit.

> thanks
> Huang Shijie
>
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html