Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 16/16] spi: Add SPI NOR protection mechanism

Hi Fabio,

On 30 October 2015 at 22:21, Fabio Estevam festevam@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Jagan,

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Jagan Teki jteki@openedev.com wrote:

...

...

+static int do_spi_protect(int argc, char * const argv[]) +{

•   int ret = 0;
  

•   loff_t start, len;
  

•   bool prot = false;
  

•   if (argc != 4)
  

•           return -1;
  

•   if (!str2off(argv[2], &start)) {
  

•           puts("start sector is not a valid number\n");
  

•           return 1;
  

•   }
  

•   if (!str2off(argv[3], &len)) {
  

•           puts("len is not a valid number\n");
  

•           return 1;
  

•   }
  

•   if (strcmp(argv[1], "lock") == 0)
  

•           prot = true;
  

•   else if (strcmp(argv[1], "unlock") == 0)
  

•           prot = false;
  

•   else
  

Don't we have is_locked command from user? may be we can all this one as well.

Sorry, I did not understand the suggestion here.

Looks like you are happy with patches 1 to 15 of this series.

Could you please apply patches 1 to 15 and then I rework only this last one?

I will pick the entire series once, since 15/16 and 16/16 are same feature set.

My questions with 16/16 is

1. We need to check the idcode as well because if we compile other flash vendor with micron, non micron flash got initialized with these lock ops' and also assign stm_* calls if the idcode is micro.

+#if defined(CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_STMICRO)

•   flash->lock = spi_flash_cmd_lock_ops;
  

•   flash->unlock = spi_flash_cmd_unlock_ops;
  

•   flash->is_locked = spi_flash_cmd_is_locked_ops;
  

+#endif

2. Do the 1 for dm as well, probably in probe.

3. What about adding 'sf protect is_locked' since we have code already?

thanks!