Re: Subject: [PATCH 1/1] mtd:nand:fix nand_lock/unlock() function

From: Brian Norris
Date: Wed Jul 23 2014 - 21:27:54 EST


Hi White,

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 01:00:01AM +0000, bpqw wrote:
> Do nand reset before write protect check
> If we want to check the WP# low or high through STATUS READ and check bit 7,
> we must reset the device, other operation (eg.erase/program a locked block) can
> also clear the bit 7 of status register.
>
> Signed-off-by: White Ding <bpqw@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> index 41167e9..22dd3aa 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> @@ -965,6 +965,15 @@ int nand_unlock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
[...]
> @@ -1015,6 +1024,15 @@ int nand_lock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
[...]

I don't see any in-tree users of nand_{un,}lock(). I recently caught a
bug in nand_lock() via inspection (still need to send a fix), but I was
considering dropping the functions entirely.

I presume you have some out-of-tree driver that uses these functions,
then?

Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/