On 07/11/19 3:01 PM, Chuanhong Guo wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 2:05 PM Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> @@ -272,6 +273,11 @@ static ssize_t mtk_nor_read(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t from, size_t length,
>>> mtk_nor_set_read_mode(mtk_nor);
>>> mtk_nor_set_addr(mtk_nor, addr);
>>>
>>> + if (mtk_nor->flash_base) {
>>> + memcpy_fromio(buffer, mtk_nor->flash_base + from, length);
>>> + return length;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>
>> Don't you need to check if access is still within valid memory mapped
>> window?
>
> The mapped area is 256MB and I don't quite believe there will be such
> a big NOR flash.
> I'll add a check here in the next version.
>
There are 256MB (2GiB) NORs out there in market already. So, pretty
soon, 256MB window won't be big enough :)
>>
>>> for (i = 0; i < length; i++) {
>>> ret = mtk_nor_execute_cmd(mtk_nor, MTK_NOR_PIO_READ_CMD);
>>> if (ret < 0)
>>> @@ -475,6 +481,11 @@ static int mtk_nor_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> if (IS_ERR(mtk_nor->base))
>>> return PTR_ERR(mtk_nor->base);
>>>
>>> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 1);
>>> + mtk_nor->flash_base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
>>
>> There is a single API now: devm_platform_ioremap_resource().
>
> Cool. I'll change it.
> Should I add another patch to change the same mapping operation right
> above this piece of code?
>
That would be nice to do too, please send a separate patch.
--
Regards
Vignesh
