On 9/29/20 7:29 PM, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On 29/09/20 03:42PM, 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. > > I haven't gone through them yet. Will check tomorrow. > >>> 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 > > We are talking about two different kinds of "state" here. The state you Right, I used 'stateful' for flashes that enter in a X-X-X mode by setting a non-volatile bit and 'stateless' for those that enter in a X-X-X mode via volatile bits. > are talking about is the persistent state of the flash configured via > non-volatile registers. Yes, a reset line doesn't help in that case at > all. > > The other state is the non-persistent state we set on the flash. Using > 1S-1S-8D mode is stateless in the sense that we didn't change any state > on the flash to be able to use this mode, and only had to use the > correct opcode. If we execute a 1S-1S-1S command next it will also work > because the flash is still interpreting opcodes in 1S mode. Using > 8D-8D-8D or 4S-4S-4S mode is stateful because we did have to configure > some state on the flash (which can very well be volatile). Once 8D-8D-8D > or 4S-4S-4S mode is entered, we cannot execute 1S-1S-1S commands until > we reset the flash because now the flash is interpreting commands in 4S > or 8D mode. This means we introduced some state on the flash. > > Having a reset line will not help against the former but will help > against the latter. If the flash is in a stateful mode like 8D-8D-8D > without a reset line, an unexpected reset could leave bootloader unable > to boot because it issues the commands in 1S-1S-1S mode that the flash > cannot interpret. So even if the state we set is volatile, we still want > to avoid doing it if there is no reset line. > > So I think the code and comment should stay as they are. Ok. Cheers, ta