Re: [PATCH v10 05/17] mtd: spi-nor: add support for DTR protocol

[Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@xxxxxx>]

On 9/29/20 9:12 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi, Pratyush,
> 
> I'm replying to v10 so that we continue the discussion, but this applies to v13 as well.
> 
> On 7/21/20 2:29 PM, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> 
>>>> @@ -2368,12 +2517,16 @@ spi_nor_spimem_adjust_hwcaps(struct spi_nor *nor, u32 *hwcaps)
>>>>         struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params = nor->params;
>>>>         unsigned int cap;
>>>>
>>>> -       /* DTR modes are not supported yet, mask them all. */
>>>> -       *hwcaps &= ~SNOR_HWCAPS_DTR;
>>>> -
>>>>         /* X-X-X modes are not supported yet, mask them all. */
>>>>         *hwcaps &= ~SNOR_HWCAPS_X_X_X;
>>>>
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * If the reset line is broken, we do not want to enter a stateful
>>>> +        * mode.
>>>> +        */
>>>> +       if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_BROKEN_RESET)
>>>> +               *hwcaps &= ~(SNOR_HWCAPS_X_X_X | SNOR_HWCAPS_X_X_X_DTR);
>>>
>>> A dedicated reset line is not enough for flashes that keep their state
>>> in non-volatile bits. Since we can't protect from unexpected crashes in
>>> the non volatile state case, we should enter these modes only with an
>>> explicit request, i.e. an optional DT property: "update-nonvolatile-state",
>>> or something similar.
>>
>> I wrote this patch with the assumption that we won't be supporting> non-volatile configuration as of now. In the previous discussions we
> 
> I think we have to take care of the stateful flashes now, otherwise we'll risk
> to end up with users that let their flashes in a mode from which they can't recover.
> I made some small RFC patches in reply to your v13, let me know what you think.
> 
>> came to the conclusion that it is not easy to detect the flash if it
>> boots in any mode other than 1S-1S-1S [0]. So if we update non-volatile
>> state, the flash would be useless after a reboot because we won't be
>> able to detect it in 8D mode. It doesn't matter if the reset line is
>> connected or not because it will reset the flash to the non-volatile
>> state, and we can't detect it from the non-volatile state.
> 
> correct, so a reset line for stateful modes doesn't help and the comment from the
> code should be updated. s/stateful/stateless

Entering an IO mode even using volatile bits (which gets cleared on SW
or HW reset) creates a "state" that SW needs to keep track of which is
why "stateful" term is used. I think that's what is implied here

AFAIU, Boris's original RFC[1] introducing X-X-X mode also used
"stateful mode" term in the same context .


>>
>>> For the volatile state case, we can parse the SFDP SCCR map, save if we
>>> can enter stateful modes in a volatile way, and if yes allow the entering.
>>
>> If we are not support volatile configurations, the reset line is enough
>> to take care of unexpected resets, no? I don't see any need to parse
> 
> the reset line is excellent for the stateless flashes, it guarantees that the
> volatile bits will return to their default state. Disabling the clock, waiting
> for a period and re-enabling it again should do the trick too, but probably
> a dedicated reset line is safer.
> 

I don't think disable-wait-enable sequence of clock input to flash will
trigger a reset... You have to take down the power and thus force flash
to go through power-down/power-up sequence or use HW or SW reset sequences

[1]
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-mtd/cover/20181012084825.23697-1-boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx/

Regards
Vignesh