On Monday, March 23, 2020 9:54:38 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 20:20, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx: > > On Monday, March 23, 2020 8:27:13 PM EET Michael Walle wrote: > >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know > >> the > >> content is safe > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Am 2020-03-23 10:24, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx: > >> > From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> > Fix the gap for the SR block protection, the BP bits were set with > >> > a +1 value than actually needed. This patch does not change the > >> > behavior of the locking operations, just fixes the protected areas. > >> > >> So instead of rounding up, it does round down now? > > > > No. Why do you say that it rounds up? The behavior is not changed, the > > patch > > merely fix the protected area, which was wrong before. The round down > > is > > present before this patch. > > TBH I don't understand what this patch should do. Could you give an > example? sure, let me try to be more explicit. > > >> > On a 16Mbit flash with 64KByte erase sector, the following changed > > >> > for the lock operation: > 16MBit is a bad example, because it is broken anyway, isn't it? We use a it's not. > 32Mbit flash where 2MB are locked and the second 2MB are unlocked. Eg. a > 50/50 split. I haven't seen any issued. Shouldn't it be then completely > locked according this the following example? I don't follow. The table from below was generated for the S25FL116K 16 Mbit flash. BTW, one has to disable CONFIG_MTD_SPI_NOR_USE_4K_SECTORS in order to test the locking. When you have a 4k sector erase, the locking is simply wrong, but this is another topic. > > >> > Number of blocks | BP2:0 before | BP2:0 now | > >> > > >> > 1 | 010b | 001b | - number of blocks is how many blocks you want to lock. One would do for one block: flash_lock /dev/mtd 0 1 i.e. lock a single erase block starting from offset 0. - "BP0:2 before" is the result of the operation "flash_lock /dev/mtd 0 1" before this patch - "BP0:2 now" is the result of the operation "flash_lock /dev/mtd 0 1" using this patch So before this patch, the lock operation was bad, because it locked 2 blocks instead of one. > >> > 2 | 110b | 010b | - lock 2 erase blocks starting from offset 0. Results before this patch, and after this patch. Continue the logic on the following lines. oops there's a typo in column 2, sorry. The value in column 2 should have been 011b. So before this patch, when one requested to lock 2 block starting from offset 0, we would obtain 4 blocks locked, and he should have obtained just 2. The scope of this patch is to first fix the locking ops, so that we can introduce a more generic formula that gives the same results as before introducing it. Without this patch, the new formula will silently fix the bug that is described here. > >> > 3 | 110b | 010b | ^ typo s/110b/011b rest of the examples are good. Cheers, ta > >> > 4 | 100b | 011b | > >> > 5 | 100b | 011b | > >> > 6 | 100b | 011b | > >> > 7 | 100b | 011b | > >> > 8 | 101b | 100b | > >> > 9 | 101b | 100b | > >> > > >> > ... | ... | ... | > >> > > >> > For the lock operation, if one requests to lock an area that is not > >> > matching the upper boundary of a BP protected area, we round down > >> > the total length and lock less than the user requested, in order to > >> > not lock more than the user actually requested. ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/