Hi, > >>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c > >>>> @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ void spi_nor_spimem_setup_op(const struct spi_nor *nor, > >>>> op->addr.buswidth = spi_nor_get_protocol_addr_nbits(proto); > >>>> > >>>> if (op->dummy.nbytes) > >>>> - op->dummy.buswidth = spi_nor_get_protocol_addr_nbits(proto); > >>>> + op->dummy.buswidth = spi_nor_get_protocol_data_nbits(proto); > > > > Facing recently a similar issue myself in the SPI NAND world, I believe > > we should get rid of the notion of bits when it comes to the dummy > > phase. I would appreciate a clarification like "dummy.cycles" which > > would typically not require any bus width implications. > > I agree. All peripheral drivers convert cycles to bytes, and controller > drivers convert them back to cycles. This whole thing should be avoided, > especially since it contains some traps with division truncation. Here is the relevant discussion: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/f647e713a65f5d3f0f2e3af95c4d0a89@xxxxxxxx/ TLDR: yes, please use the notion of (clock) cycles. But there are some problems to solve first. > >> Since we are quite late in the cycle, and that changing > >> spi_mem_check_buswidth() might cause all sorts of breakages, I think the > >> best idea currently would be to revert this patch, and resend it with > >> the other changes later. > >> > >> Tudor, Michael, Miquel, what do you think about this? We are at rc7 but > >> I think we should send out a fixes PR with a revert. If you agree, I > >> will send out a patch and a PR. > > > > Either way I am fine. the -rc cycles are also available for us to > > settle. But it's true we can bikeshed a little bit, so feel free to > > revert this patch before sending the MR. > > To be clear, since the patch was added in v6.13-rc1 I want to revert it > via a fixes pull request to Linus before he releases v6.13 this week. I > want to fix it in v6.13, not in v6.14. Since it's clearly a regression, I'd revert it. -michael
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
