On 23/05/19 8:44 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 2:08 AM Chris Packham > <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Add an implementation of the _is_locked operation for concatenated mtd >> devices. As with concat_lock/concat_unlock this can simply use the >> common helper and pass mtd_is_locked as the operation. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c | 6 ++++++ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c >> index 9514cd2db63c..0e919f3423af 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c >> @@ -496,6 +496,11 @@ static int concat_unlock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len) >> return __concat_xxlock(mtd, ofs, len, mtd_unlock); >> } >> >> +static int concat_is_locked(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len) >> +{ >> + return __concat_xxlock(mtd, ofs, len, mtd_is_locked); >> +} > > Hmm, here you start abusing your own new API. :( Abusing because xxlock is a poor choice of name? I initially had a third copy of the logic from lock/unlock which is what lead me to do the cleanup first. mtd_lock(), mtd_unlock() and mtd_is_locked() all work the same way namely given an offset and a length either lock, unlock or return the status of the len/erasesz blocks at ofs. > > Did you verify that the unlock/lock-functions deal correctly with all > semantics from mtd_is_locked? > i.e. mtd_is_locked() with len = 0 returns 1 for spi-nor. > I believe so. I've only got access to a parallel NOR flash system that uses concatenation and that seems sane (is mtdconcat able to work with spi memories?). The concat_is_locked() should just reflect what the underlying mtd device driver returns. ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/