lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: add support to non-uniform SPI NOR flash memories
From
Date
On 05/23/2018 02:52 PM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> Hi, Marek,

Hi,

> On 05/23/2018 12:56 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> [...]
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> +    while (len) {
>>>>>>> +        cmd = spi_nor_find_best_erase_cmd(map, region, addr, len);
>>>>>>> +        if (!cmd)
>>>>>>> +            return -EINVAL;
>>>>>> What would happen if you realize mid-way that you cannot erase some
>>>>>> sector , do you end up with partial erase ?
>>>>> Is this possible? In non-overlaid regions, the address is aligned with
>>>>> at least one of the erase commands, else -EINVAL. For overlaid regions
>>>>> alignment doesn't matter. But yes, if this is possible, in this case,
>>>>> this proposal will do a partial erase.
>>>> Shouldn't we fail up front instead ?
>>> It will be great if we can do this without having performance penalties.
>>> Can we loose the conditions for the last erase command? If one wants to
>>> erase 80k chunk starting from offset 0 and only 32k and 64k erase type
>>> are supported, can we erase 96k?
>> No. But can you maybe build a list of erase commands to be executed once
>> you validate that the erase can be performed for example ?
>
> My second choice was an array witch saves u8 opcode and u32 erasesize.
> There are flashes of 256MB, in the worst case scenario with 4k erase
> type, we will end up with 64K entries.

Some RLE encoding might help here ?

> How about enforcing the length to be multiple of mtd->erasesize, like we
> do in uniform_erase? With this, the problem disappears.

What is the erase size for the 4k-sector 256MiB flash ?

--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-23 19:18    [W:0.052 / U:2.784 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site