On Monday, March 23, 2020 8:33:19 PM EET Michael Walle wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the > content is safe > Am 2020-03-23 10:24, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx: > > From: Jungseung Lee <js07.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Currently, we are supporting block protection only for flash chips with > > 3 block protection bits (BP0-2) in the SR register. > > > > Enable block protection support for flashes with 4 block protection > > bits > > (BP0-3). > > > > Add a flash_info flag for flashes that describe 4 block protection > > bits. > > Add another flash_info flag for flashes in which BP3 bit is not > > adjacent > > to the BP0-2 bits. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jungseung Lee <js07.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx> > > [ta: > > - introduce spi_nor_get_sr_bp_mask(), spi_nor_get_sr_tb_mask() > > - drop Micron n25q512ax3 / BP0-3) boilerplate description > > that was actually a comment on my side some time ago. Because the > current > example isn't really good and lacks the second case (which is added by > this patch). > I didn't like the example that was introduced by Jungseung because of the last column, the "Protected Portion" -> it focuses on Upper/Lower 1/pow(2, n). I think it is better to replace the "Protected Portion" column with a "Protected Block(s)" column (see a winbond datasheet), in order to be in sync with how the code looks now. It's true that the current example has the same problem. Would you care to send a patch to replace the current example? (keeping two examples would be too much). Or maybe remove the example entirely? Also, would you please review 1/5 as well? I need an agreement on that before applying the series. Cheers, ta ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/