Hi,
On 2/1/22 11:47, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
On 31/01/22 02:43PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hi Vignesh, Tudory, Pratyush,
+ Tudor and Pratyush
christophe.kerello@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:57:55 +0100:
Wp-gpios property can be used on NVMEM nodes and the same property can
be also used on MTD NAND nodes. In case of the wp-gpios property is
defined at NAND level node, the GPIO management is done at NAND driver
level. Write protect is disabled when the driver is probed or resumed
and is enabled when the driver is released or suspended.
When no partitions are defined in the NAND DT node, then the NAND DT node
will be passed to NVMEM framework. If wp-gpios property is defined in
this node, the GPIO resource is taken twice and the NAND controller
driver fails to probe.
A new Boolean flag named skip_wp_gpio has been added in nvmem_config.
In case skip_wp_gpio is set, it means that the GPIO is handled by the
provider. Lets set this flag in MTD layer to avoid the conflict on
wp_gpios property.
Signed-off-by: Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
index 70f492dce158..e6d251594def 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
@@ -546,6 +546,7 @@ static int mtd_nvmem_add(struct mtd_info *mtd)
config.stride = 1;
config.read_only = true;
config.root_only = true;
+ config.skip_wp_gpio = true;
config.no_of_node = !of_device_is_compatible(node, "nvmem-cells");
config.priv = mtd;
@@ -833,6 +834,7 @@ static struct nvmem_device *mtd_otp_nvmem_register(struct mtd_info *mtd,
config.owner = THIS_MODULE;
config.type = NVMEM_TYPE_OTP;
config.root_only = true;
+ config.skip_wp_gpio = true;
config.reg_read = reg_read;
config.size = size;
config.of_node = np;
TLDR: There is a conflict between MTD and NVMEM, who should handle the
WP pin when there is one? At least for raw NAND devices, I don't want
the NVMEM core to handle the wp pin. So we've introduced this
skip_wp_gpio nvmem config option. But there are two places where this
boolean can be set and one of these is for otp regions (see above). In
this case, I don't know if it is safe or if CFI/SPI-NOR rely on the
nvmem protection. Please tell us if you think this is fine for you.
Why does NVMEM touch hardware write protection in the first place? The
purpose of the framework is to provide a way to retrieve config stored
in memory. It has no business dealing with details of the chip like the
WP line. That should be MTD's job (which it should delegate to SPI NOR,
SPI NAND, etc.). If you want to write protect a cell then do it in
software. I don't see why NVMEM should be dealing with hardware directly
at all.
That is my mental model of how things _should_ work. I have not spent
much time digging into how things actually work currently.
Wp-gpios property management was added in MVMEM framework in January
2020 => sha1: 2a127da461a9d8d97782d6e82b227041393eb4d2
"
nvmem: add support for the write-protect pin
The write-protect pin handling looks like a standard property that
could benefit other users if available in the core nvmem framework.
Instead of modifying all the memory drivers to check this pin, make
the NVMEM subsystem check if the write-protect GPIO being passed
through the nvmem_config or defined in the device tree and pull it
low whenever writing to the memory.
"
And this modification was done for EEPROMs flashes => sha1:
1c89074bf85068d1b86f2e0f0c2110fdd9b83c9f
"
eeprom: at24: remove the write-protect pin support
NVMEM framework is an interface for the at24 EEPROMs as well as for
other drivers, instead of passing the wp-gpios over the different
drivers each time, it would be better to pass it over the NVMEM
subsystem once and for all.
Removing the support for the write-protect pin after adding it to
the NVMEM subsystem.
"
Current NVMEM framework implementation toggles the WP GPIO when
reg_write nvmem_config API is defined. In case of MTD framework,
reg_write is not defined in nvmem_config.
Based on the comments made, it seems that we also agree that this write
protection should be handled by MTD subsystems or associated drivers and
not by MVMEN framework for MTD use cases.
The proposal implementation should solve this conflict for MTD framework
without breaking anything for others NVMEM users (EEPROMs flashes for
example).
Regards,
Christophe Kerello.
