[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] spi_flash: Add error message when lock operations are not supported
From: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com
In the case of lock operations not being supported, we should better let the user know instead of failing silently.
Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com --- include/spi_flash.h | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/spi_flash.h b/include/spi_flash.h index 0ae0062..ff51c50 100644 --- a/include/spi_flash.h +++ b/include/spi_flash.h @@ -237,8 +237,10 @@ static inline int spi_flash_erase(struct spi_flash *flash, u32 offset, static inline int spi_flash_protect(struct spi_flash *flash, u32 ofs, u32 len, bool prot) { - if (!flash->flash_lock) + if (!flash->flash_lock) { + printf("Protect operation not supported for this flash\n"); return -EOPNOTSUPP; + }
if (prot) return flash->flash_lock(flash, ofs, len);
From: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com
SST SPI NOR flash has the same locking programming bits as ST Micro.
Add support for it.
Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com --- drivers/mtd/spi/sf_internal.h | 1 + drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_internal.h b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_internal.h index 8793f18..85c8a89 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_internal.h +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_internal.h @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ enum spi_nor_option_flags { #define SPI_FLASH_CFI_MFR_SPANSION 0x01 #define SPI_FLASH_CFI_MFR_STMICRO 0x20 #define SPI_FLASH_CFI_MFR_MACRONIX 0xc2 +#define SPI_FLASH_CFI_MFR_SST 0xbf #define SPI_FLASH_CFI_MFR_WINBOND 0xef
/* Erase commands */ diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c index bc05d30..fea6c24 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c @@ -184,8 +184,9 @@ static int spi_flash_validate_params(struct spi_slave *spi, u8 *idcode,
/* lock hooks are flash specific - assign them based on idcode0 */ switch (idcode[0]) { -#ifdef CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_STMICRO +#if defined CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_STMICRO || defined CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_SST case SPI_FLASH_CFI_MFR_STMICRO: + case SPI_FLASH_CFI_MFR_SST: flash->flash_lock = stm_lock; flash->flash_unlock = stm_unlock; flash->flash_is_locked = stm_is_locked;
Hi Jagan,
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Fabio Estevam festevam@gmail.com wrote:
From: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com
SST SPI NOR flash has the same locking programming bits as ST Micro.
Add support for it.
Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com
Any comments on this series, please?
On 11 November 2015 at 20:51, Fabio Estevam festevam@gmail.com wrote:
From: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com
SST SPI NOR flash has the same locking programming bits as ST Micro.
Add support for it.
Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com
drivers/mtd/spi/sf_internal.h | 1 + drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_internal.h b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_internal.h index 8793f18..85c8a89 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_internal.h +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_internal.h @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ enum spi_nor_option_flags { #define SPI_FLASH_CFI_MFR_SPANSION 0x01 #define SPI_FLASH_CFI_MFR_STMICRO 0x20 #define SPI_FLASH_CFI_MFR_MACRONIX 0xc2 +#define SPI_FLASH_CFI_MFR_SST 0xbf #define SPI_FLASH_CFI_MFR_WINBOND 0xef
/* Erase commands */ diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c index bc05d30..fea6c24 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c @@ -184,8 +184,9 @@ static int spi_flash_validate_params(struct spi_slave *spi, u8 *idcode,
/* lock hooks are flash specific - assign them based on idcode0 */ switch (idcode[0]) {-#ifdef CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_STMICRO +#if defined CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_STMICRO || defined CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_SST case SPI_FLASH_CFI_MFR_STMICRO:
case SPI_FLASH_CFI_MFR_SST: flash->flash_lock = stm_lock; flash->flash_unlock = stm_unlock; flash->flash_is_locked = stm_is_locked;--
Please add SST #ifdef on lock definitions as well.
thanks!
On 11 November 2015 at 20:51, Fabio Estevam festevam@gmail.com wrote:
From: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com
In the case of lock operations not being supported, we should better let the user know instead of failing silently.
Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com
include/spi_flash.h | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/spi_flash.h b/include/spi_flash.h index 0ae0062..ff51c50 100644 --- a/include/spi_flash.h +++ b/include/spi_flash.h @@ -237,8 +237,10 @@ static inline int spi_flash_erase(struct spi_flash *flash, u32 offset, static inline int spi_flash_protect(struct spi_flash *flash, u32 ofs, u32 len, bool prot) {
if (!flash->flash_lock)
if (!flash->flash_lock) {printf("Protect operation not supported for this flash\n"); return -EOPNOTSUPP;}
Here it's not required, it's better to print the protected area in cmd_sf itself similar way as mtd_utils flash_lock
thanks!
participants (2)
-
Fabio Estevam -
Jagan Teki