Hi Alexander, + Michael and Tudor Folks, any interesting thought about the below discussion? alexander.usyskin@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 08:47:34 +0000: > > > > > > > > > + spi->mtd.writesize = SZ_1; /* 1 byte granularity */ > > > > > > > > > > > > You say writesize should be aligned with 4 in your next patch? > > > > > > > > > > We support unaligned write by reading aligned 4bytes, > > > > > replacing changed bytes there and writing whole 4bytes back. > > > > > Is there any problem with this approach? > > > > > > > > Is there a reason to do that manually rather than letting the core > > > > handle the complexity? > > > > > > > I was not aware that core can do this. The core implements above logic > > > if I put SZ_4 here and caller try to write, say, one byte? > > > And sync multiple writers? > > > If so, I can remove manual work, I think, and make the patches smaller. > > > > I haven't checked in detail but I would expect this yes. Please have a > > round of tests and if it works, please simplify this part. > > > > Thanks, > > Miquèl > > When I put SZ_4 here the "mtd_debug info /dev/mtd0" prints "mtd.writesize = 4", > but "mtd_debug write /dev/mtd0 128 1 c" passes one byte to > i915_spi_write (mtd._write callback). > I suppose that mtd subsystem do not support this. > Or I did something wrong? > Thanks, Miquèl
