From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:29:57 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v7 21/21] sf: Add SPI NOR protection mechanism In-Reply-To: References: <1446734622-5100-1-git-send-email-fabio.estevam@freescale.com> <1446734622-5100-21-git-send-email-fabio.estevam@freescale.com> <20151106122432.GX8499@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <20151111002957.GI8060@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 04:09:52PM -0800, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Fabio, > > On 6 November 2015 at 04:24, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 12:43:42PM -0200, Fabio Estevam wrote: > > > >> Many SPI flashes have protection bits (BP2, BP1 and BP0) in the > >> status register that can protect selected regions of the SPI NOR. > >> > >> Take these bits into account when performing erase operations, > >> making sure that the protected areas are skipped. > >> > >> Tested on a mx6qsabresd: > >> > >> => sf probe > >> SF: Detected M25P32 with page size 256 Bytes, erase size 64 KiB, total 4 MiB > >> => sf protect lock 0x3f0000 0x10000 > >> => sf erase 0x3f0000 0x10000 > >> offset 0x3f0000 is protected and cannot be erased > >> SF: 65536 bytes @ 0x3f0000 Erased: ERROR > >> => sf protect unlock 0x3f0000 0x10000 > >> => sf erase 0x3f0000 0x10000 > >> SF: 65536 bytes @ 0x3f0000 Erased: OK > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam > >> [re-worked to fit the lock common to dm and non-dm] > >> Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki > >> Reviewed-by: Tom Rini > >> Reviewed-by: Heiko Schocher > >> Reviewed-by: Jagan Teki > > > > Applied to u-boot/master, thanks! > > This patch breaks chromebook_link - I think because it adds a new > operation which is not supported by all flash chips. Those that are > not supported (i.e that don't have the 'flash_is_locked' method) > should still work. > > Also I don't like the way this adds new operations to struct > spi_flash. These should go in struct dm_spi_flash_ops for driver > model, and be compatible with the driver-model way of doing things. > > Can you please take a look? I think it's a bit more complex, I thought we had covered the not supported case. I wonder if it's the same chip family and thus thought to be, but not in this case, supported? -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: