On 11/05/2019 07:07 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote: > On 02-Nov-19 4:53 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Make sure that when doing a lock() or an unlock() operation we don't clear >> the QE bit from Status Register 2. >> >> JESD216 revB or later offers information about the *default* Status >> Register commands to use (see BFPT DWORDS[15], bits 22:20). In this >> standard, Status Register 1 refers to the first data byte transferred on a >> Read Status (05h) or Write Status (01h) command. Status register 2 refers >> to the byte read using instruction 35h. Status register 2 is the second >> byte transferred in a Write Status (01h) command. >> >> Industry naming and definitions of these Status Registers may differ. >> The definitions are described in JESD216B, BFPT DWORDS[15], bits 22:20. >> There are cases in which writing only one byte to the Status Register 1 >> has the side-effect of clearing Status Register 2 and implicitly the Quad >> Enable bit. This side-effect is hit just by the >> BFPT_DWORD15_QER_SR2_BIT1_BUGGY and BFPT_DWORD15_QER_SR2_BIT1 cases. >> > But I see that 1 byte SR1 write still happens as part of > spi_nor_clear_sr_bp() until patch 20/20. So is this only a partial fix? Fixing spi_nor_clear_sr_bp() would mean to add dead code that will be removed anyway with patch 20/20. This patch fixes the clearing of the QE bit, while in 20/20 the QE bit is already zero when the one byte SR1 write is used, so the quad mode is not affected. 20/20 fixes indirectly the clearing of all the bits from SR2 but QE bit, because it's already zero. I would say it's not a partial fix, but a different bug. There are different angles to look at this, I chose the modifying of the quad mode angle. Given the two arguments from above (avoid adding dead code and changing of quad mode approach), I would prefer to keep things as they are. But I get your approach too, so if you still want yours, I can do it. Please let me know. > Should this patch be rearranged to appear along with 20/20? Not necessarily (different bugs) but I can bring 20/20 immediately after this one if you want. > > >> Suggested-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c | 120 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h | 3 ++ >> 2 files changed, 118 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c >> index 725dab241271..f96bc80c0ed1 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c >> @@ -959,12 +959,19 @@ static int spi_nor_write_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, const u8 *sr, size_t len) >> return spi_nor_wait_till_ready(nor); >> } >> > [...] >> +/** >> * spi_nor_write_sr2() - Write the Status Register 2 using the >> * SPINOR_OP_WRSR2 (3eh) command. >> * @nor: pointer to 'struct spi_nor'. >> @@ -3634,19 +3723,38 @@ static int spi_nor_parse_bfpt(struct spi_nor *nor, >> break; >> >> case BFPT_DWORD15_QER_SR2_BIT1_BUGGY: >> + /* >> + * Writing only one byte to the Status Register has the >> + * side-effect of clearing Status Register 2. >> + */ >> case BFPT_DWORD15_QER_SR2_BIT1_NO_RD: >> + /* >> + * Read Configuration Register (35h) instruction is not >> + * supported. >> + */ >> + nor->flags |= SNOR_F_HAS_16BIT_SR | SNOR_F_NO_READ_CR; > Since SNOR_F_HAS_16BIT_SR is set by default in > spi_nor_info_init_params(), no need to set the flag here again > I did this on purpose. I set SNOR_F_HAS_16BIT_SR here based on SFDP standard, I want to indicate where the standard requires the 16 bit SR write . spi_nor_info_init_params() initializes data based on info, but that data can be overwritten (even with the same data) when parsing SFDP. Thanks, ta ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/