On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 8:34 PM Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/16/23 13:22, Michael Walle wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >>> like a fundamental problem and that commit 39d1e3340c73 ("mtd: spi-nor:
> >>> Fix clearing of QE bit on lock()/unlock()") is broken in that regard.
> >>
> >> what's wrong with the mentioned commit?
> >
> > } else if (nor->params->quad_enable) {
> > /*
> > * If the Status Register 2 Read command (35h) is not
> > * supported, we should at least be sure we don't
> > * change the value of the SR2 Quad Enable bit.
> > *
> > * We can safely assume that when the Quad Enable method is
> > * set, the value of the QE bit is one, as a consequence of the
> > * nor->params->quad_enable() call.
> > *
> > * We can safely assume that the Quad Enable bit is present in
> > * the Status Register 2 at BIT(1). According to the JESD216
> > * revB standard, BFPT DWORDS[15], bits 22:20, the 16-bit
> > * Write Status (01h) command is available just for the cases
> > * in which the QE bit is described in SR2 at BIT(1).
> > */
> > sr_cr[1] = SR2_QUAD_EN_BIT1;
> > } else {
> > sr_cr[1] = 0;
> > }
> >
> > "We can safely assume that when the Quad Enable method..". We cannot, if we
> > don't have 4 I/O lines. The quad_enable is just the op how to do it, but not
> > *if* can do it. It seems to be missing the same check as the
> > spi_nor_quad_enable(). But I'm not sure if it's that simple.
> >
>
> I see. Then extending the if condition should do the trick, as
> spi_nor_write_16bit_sr_and_check() is called after setup. Something
> like:
>
> if (spi_nor_get_protocol_width(nor->read_proto) == 4 &&
> spi_nor_get_protocol_width(nor->write_proto) == 4 &&
> nor->params->quad_enable)
>
> Is this what Hsin-Yi is hitting?
Yes, it is. Adding these checks can solve the issue. The read out
width for both read and write is 1, which matches the default bus
width.
Thanks.
