On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:10:23 +0000 Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 11:14 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > > > On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 12:13:29 +0200 > > Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > cfi_ppb_unlock() walks all flash chips when unlocking sectors. > > > testing lock status on each chip which causes relocking of already > > > locked sectors. Test against offset to aviod this aliasing. > > > > ^ avoid > > > > As I said before, I think the current code is doing worse than just > > relocking already locked sectors. As soon as you cross a chip boundary, > > addr is set back to 0, and the (addr < offs || adr >= (ofs + len)) might > > be true while it shouldn't be (absolute offset still in the unlock > > range), which means you'll lock sectors that the caller expect to be > > unlocked. > > I don't see how, the code asks for its current lock status and will reapply > those that are locked again. After reading the commit message a second time I think I misunderstood it. I thought you were implying that the re-locking operation was harmless and the only reason for fixing the test was to avoid useless lock operations, but that's not what you wrote. Sorry for the noise.
