Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: micron-st: enable lock/unlock for mt25qu512a
From: Tudor Ambarus
Date: Thu Oct 05 2023 - 12:44:38 EST
On 10/5/23 10:21, SHUKLA Mamta Ramendra wrote:
cut
>>
>> and the second one will add just the BP support, something like:
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/micron-st.c
>> b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/micron-st.c
>> index a8da1f18e335..fdafbfa0f936 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/micron-st.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/micron-st.c
>> @@ -405,6 +405,8 @@ static const struct flash_info st_nor_parts[] = {
>> }, {
>> .id = SNOR_ID(0x20, 0xbb, 0x20, 0x10, 0x44, 0x00),
>> .name = "mt25qu512a",
>> + .flags = SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK | SPI_NOR_HAS_TB |
>> SPI_NOR_4BIT_BP |
>> + SPI_NOR_BP3_SR_BIT6,
>> .mfr_flags = USE_FSR,
>> }, {
>> .id = SNOR_ID(0x20, 0xbb, 0x20),
>>
>> Of course, I expect you to run again the mtd_debug tests and also verify
>> the locking. Thanks!
>
> I applied both changes as mentioned above i.e
> 1] Switch to SFDP and 2] Using BP Flags.
>
> Case 1: Use BP Flags and Switch to SFDP
> With both these changes, the lock/unlock doesn't work.
>
> ## x86-64-smarc-evk-uwd0j0007 # uname -r
> 6.6.0-rc2
>
> # flash_lock -i /dev/mtd0
> Device: /dev/mtd0
> Start: 0
> Len: 0x4000000
> Lock status: unlocked
> Return code: 0
> # flash_lock -l /dev/mtd0
> flash_lock: error!: could not lock device: /dev/mtd0
>
> error 5 (Input/output error)
>
>
> I suspected this is because of miscalculation of BP bits, like the
> possibility mentioned here:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mtd/linux.git/commit/?h=spi-nor/next&id=3ea3f0ac242c86c0275d347ab8c92bf1eb854b49
>
>
> But further checked size, it is correct:
>
> # mtd_debug info /dev/mtd0
> mtd.type = MTD_NORFLASH
> mtd.flags = MTD_CAP_NORFLASH
> mtd.size = 67108864 (64M)
> mtd.erasesize = 4096 (4K)
> mtd.writesize = 1
> mtd.oobsize = 0
> regions = 0
>
> And rest of read/write functions work as expected.
>
> Any suggestions about this?
>
> Case 2: Just added BP flags, rest of the size, mfr_flags, fixup flags
> kept as it is.
would you please detail what exact definitions you used in case 2? Send
us the diff please.
Cheers,
ta
> Lock/unlock works.
>
> ## x86-64-smarc-evk-uwd0j0007 # uname -r
> 6.6.0-rc2
>
> # flash_lock -i /dev/mtd0
> Start: 0
> Len: 0x4000000
> Lock status: unlocked
> Return code: 0
>
> # flash_lock -l /dev/mtd0
> # flash_lock -i /dev/mtd0
> Device: /dev/mtd0
> Start: 0
> Len: 0x4000000
> Lock status: locked
> Return code: 1
>
> ## x86-64-smarc-evk-uwd0j0007 # mtd_debug erase /dev/mtd0 0 1048576
> [ 413.472411] spi-nor spi-PRP0001:00: Erase operation failed.
> [ 413.478084] spi-nor spi-PRP0001:00: Attempted to modify a protected
> sector.
> MEMERASE: Input/output error
>
> # flash_lock -u /dev/mtd0
> # flash_lock -i /dev/mtd0
> Device: /dev/mtd0
> Start: 0
> Len: 0x4000000
> Lock status: unlocked
> Return code: 0
>
> ## x86-64-smarc-evk-uwd0j0007 # mtd_debug erase /dev/mtd0 0 1048576
> Erased 1048576 bytes from address 0x00000000 in flash
>
>
> Further I tested on stable 6.5.5 Kernel with old way of Flash Info
> Format and which has forced PARSE_SFDP Flag, no issues with lock/unlock.
>
>
> ---
> Mamta