From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B66C35254 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:22:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B502064C for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:22:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728824AbgBQJWg (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 04:22:36 -0500 Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk ([46.235.227.227]:37832 "EHLO bhuna.collabora.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728272AbgBQJWg (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 04:22:36 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e0a:2c:6930:5cf4:84a1:2763:fe0d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bbrezillon) by bhuna.collabora.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0897F28BDB9; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:22:34 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:22:30 +0100 From: Boris Brezillon To: Miquel Raynal Cc: masonccyang@mxic.com.tw, bbrezillon@kernel.org, computersforpeace@gmail.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, juliensu@mxic.com.tw, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, marek.vasut@gmail.com, richard@nod.at, vigneshr@ti.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mtd: rawnand: Add support manufacturer specific lock/unlock operatoin Message-ID: <20200217102230.5dfd36e3@collabora.com> In-Reply-To: <20200217100124.6ff71191@xps13> References: <1572256527-5074-1-git-send-email-masonccyang@mxic.com.tw> <1572256527-5074-2-git-send-email-masonccyang@mxic.com.tw> <20200109203055.2370a358@collabora.com> <20200217100124.6ff71191@xps13> Organization: Collabora X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:01:24 +0100 Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Mason, > > masonccyang@mxic.com.tw wrote on Mon, 17 Feb 2020 16:14:23 +0800: > > > Hi Boris, > > > > > > > > > /* Set default functions */ > > > > static void nand_set_defaults(struct nand_chip *chip) > > > > { > > > > @@ -5782,8 +5810,8 @@ static int nand_scan_tail(struct nand_chip > > *chip) > > > > mtd->_read_oob = nand_read_oob; > > > > mtd->_write_oob = nand_write_oob; > > > > mtd->_sync = nand_sync; > > > > - mtd->_lock = NULL; > > > > - mtd->_unlock = NULL; > > > > + mtd->_lock = nand_lock; > > > > + mtd->_unlock = nand_unlock; > > > > mtd->_suspend = nand_suspend; > > > > mtd->_resume = nand_resume; > > > > mtd->_reboot = nand_shutdown; > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h > > > > index 4ab9bcc..2430ecd 100644 > > > > --- a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h > > > > +++ b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h > > > > @@ -1136,6 +1136,9 @@ struct nand_chip { > > > > const struct nand_manufacturer *desc; > > > > void *priv; > > > > } manufacturer; > > > > + > > > > + int (*_lock)(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len); > > > > + int (*_unlock)(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len); > > > > > > Please drop this _ prefix. > > > > Drop _ prefix of _lock will get compile error due to there is already > > defined "struct mutex lock" in struct nand_chip. > > Right! Or maybe move all hooks to a sub-struct (struct nand_chip_ops ops). I had planned to do that in my nand_chip_legacy refactor but never did, so maybe now is a good time. > > > > > What about keep this _ prefix or patch it to blocklock/blockunlock, > > i.e., > > int (*blocklock)(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len); > > int (*blockunlock)(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len); > > What about lock_area() unlock_area() ? Seems more accurate to me, tell > me if I'm wrong. Yep, definitely better.