On 07/11/19 3:01 PM, Chuanhong Guo wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 2:05 PM Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> @@ -272,6 +273,11 @@ static ssize_t mtk_nor_read(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t from, size_t length, >>> mtk_nor_set_read_mode(mtk_nor); >>> mtk_nor_set_addr(mtk_nor, addr); >>> >>> + if (mtk_nor->flash_base) { >>> + memcpy_fromio(buffer, mtk_nor->flash_base + from, length); >>> + return length; >>> + } >>> + >> >> Don't you need to check if access is still within valid memory mapped >> window? > > The mapped area is 256MB and I don't quite believe there will be such > a big NOR flash. > I'll add a check here in the next version. > There are 256MB (2GiB) NORs out there in market already. So, pretty soon, 256MB window won't be big enough :) >> >>> for (i = 0; i < length; i++) { >>> ret = mtk_nor_execute_cmd(mtk_nor, MTK_NOR_PIO_READ_CMD); >>> if (ret < 0) >>> @@ -475,6 +481,11 @@ static int mtk_nor_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> if (IS_ERR(mtk_nor->base)) >>> return PTR_ERR(mtk_nor->base); >>> >>> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 1); >>> + mtk_nor->flash_base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res); >> >> There is a single API now: devm_platform_ioremap_resource(). > > Cool. I'll change it. > Should I add another patch to change the same mapping operation right > above this piece of code? > That would be nice to do too, please send a separate patch. -- Regards Vignesh ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/