Hi,
On 2022/03/16 3:51, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hi Tokunori,
ikegami.t@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Wed, 16 Mar 2022 01:56:07 +0900:
As pointed out by this bug report [1], the buffered write is now broken on
, buffered writes are now broken
S29GL064N. The reason is that changed the buffered write to use chip_good
instead of chip_ready.
"This issue comes from a rework which switched from using chip_good()
to chip_ready(), because <explain the difference here>."
[please note I am just trying to understand what the root cause is,
please rephrase if I'm wrong].
Fixed by the version 4 patches.
One way to solve the issue is to revert the change
partially to use chip_ready for S29GL064N since the way of least surprise.
s/since the way of least surprise//
Fixed by the version 4 patches.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Fixes: dfeae1073583("mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Change write buffer to check correct value")
Signed-off-by: Tokunori Ikegami <ikegami.t@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx>
Cc: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@xxxxxx>
Cc: linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think you can get rid of all the above Cc: tags and just copy all 3
of us + the mailing list when sending your v4.
Fixed by the version 4 patches.
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
Please also include a Fixes/stable tag in the patch before (2/3) to explain
that both patches are required in order to fix the issue and the current patch alone won't apply.
You should mention that with a nice comment below the three dashes ("---") in patch 2/3 as well.
drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
index 8f3f0309dc03..fa11db066c99 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
@@ -867,10 +867,20 @@ static int __xipram chip_good(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip,
return chip_check(map, chip, addr, &expected);
}
+static bool __xipram cfi_use_chip_ready_for_write(struct map_info *map)
+{
+ struct cfi_private *cfi = map->fldrv_priv;
+
+ return cfi->mfr == CFI_MFR_AMD && cfi->id == S29GL064N_MN12;
+}
+
static int __xipram chip_good_for_write(struct map_info *map,
struct flchip *chip, unsigned long addr,
map_word expected)
{
+ if (cfi_use_chip_ready_for_write(map))
+ return chip_ready(map, chip, addr);
+
return chip_good(map, chip, addr, expected);
}
This is much more understandable.
Vignesh, perhaps it would be better to provide a way for manufacturers
to overload certain callbacks instead of applying quirks like this in
the code. But that will come in a second time of course.
Thanks,
Miquèl
