On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 07:04:17PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 10:02:47AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 11:14:47 +0530
> > Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > > /* helper to configure address register values */
> > > -static void set_address(struct qcom_nand_host *host, u16 column, int page)
> > > +static int set_address(struct qcom_nand_host *host, u16 column, int page)
> > > {
> > > struct nand_chip *chip = &host->chip;
> > > struct qcom_nand_controller *nandc = get_qcom_nand_controller(chip);
> > > + u32 offs = page << chip->page_shift;
> > > + int i, j;
> > > +
> > > + /* Skip touching the secure regions if present */
> > > + for (i = 0, j = 0; i < host->nr_sec_regions; i++, j += 2) {
> > > + if (offs >= host->sec_regions[j] &&
> > > + (offs <= host->sec_regions[j] + host->sec_regions[j + 1]))
> > > + return -EIO;
> > > + }
> >
> > Hm, not sure that's a good idea to make this check part of
> > set_address(). Looks like set_address() can be used for ONFI page
> > access too, and you definitely don't want to block those
> > requests. I'd recommend having a separate helper that you can call from
> > qcom_nandc_{read,write}_{oob,page,page_raw}().
> >
>
> Right but I went for the code simplicity :/ Anyway, since you're favoring
> towards moving this check into code, I'll incorporate your suggestion
s/code/core
> accordingly.
>
> Thanks,
> Mani
