lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] spi-nor: add support for is25wp256d
From
Date
On 08/04/2018 03:49 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> From: "Wesley W. Terpstra" <wesley@sifive.com>
>
> This is used of the HiFive Unleashed development board.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wesley W. Terpstra <wesley@sifive.com>
> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> index d9c368c44194..e9a3557a3c23 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> @@ -1072,6 +1072,9 @@ static const struct flash_info spi_nor_ids[] = {
> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
> { "is25wp128", INFO(0x9d7018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256,
> SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
> + { "is25wp256d", INFO(0x9d7019, 0, 32 * 1024, 1024,

Is there a reason for the trailing 'd' in is25wp256d ? I'd drop it.

> + SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ | SPI_NOR_4B_OPCODES)
> + },
>
> /* Macronix */
> { "mx25l512e", INFO(0xc22010, 0, 64 * 1024, 1, SECT_4K) },
> @@ -1515,6 +1518,45 @@ static int macronix_quad_enable(struct spi_nor *nor)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/**
> + * issi_unlock() - clear BP[0123] write-protection.
> + * @nor: pointer to a 'struct spi_nor'
> + *
> + * Bits [2345] of the Status Register are BP[0123].
> + * ISSI chips use a different block protection scheme than other chips.
> + * Just disable the write-protect unilaterally.
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on success, -errno otherwise.
> + */
> +static int issi_unlock(struct spi_nor *nor)
> +{
> + int ret, val;
> + u8 mask = SR_BP0 | SR_BP1 | SR_BP2 | SR_BP3;
> +
> + val = read_sr(nor);
> + if (val < 0)
> + return val;
> + if (!(val & mask))
> + return 0;
> +
> + write_enable(nor);
> +
> + write_sr(nor, val & ~mask);
> +
> + ret = spi_nor_wait_till_ready(nor);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = read_sr(nor);
> + if (ret > 0 && !(ret & mask)) {
> + dev_info(nor->dev, "ISSI Block Protection Bits cleared\n");
> + return 0;

Is the dev_info() really needed ?

> + } else {
> + dev_err(nor->dev, "ISSI Block Protection Bits not cleared\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +}

[...]
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-04 13:28    [W:0.106 / U:1.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site