| Message ID | 20191102112316.20715-13-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Ambarus Tudor |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mtd: spi-nor: Quad Enable and (un)lock methods | expand |
On 02/11/19 4:53 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: > From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> > > Demystify where the EIO error occurs. > > Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> > --- I think this is a small enough change that can be squashed into previous patch itself > drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c > index 8f5e9833081b..725dab241271 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c > @@ -974,7 +974,12 @@ static int spi_nor_write_sr_and_check(struct spi_nor *nor, u8 status_new) > if (ret) > return ret; > > - return (nor->bouncebuf[0] != status_new) ? -EIO : 0; > + if (nor->bouncebuf[0] != status_new) { > + dev_dbg(nor->dev, "SR: read back test failed\n"); > + return -EIO; > + } > + > + return 0; > } > > /** >
On 11/05/2019 02:37 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote: > On 02/11/19 4:53 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: >> From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> >> >> Demystify where the EIO error occurs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> >> --- > I think this is a small enough change that can be squashed into previous > patch itself > I made separate patches because this is a separate logical change. The previous patch extends the check on all bits of the Status Register, while this one prints a debug message in case of EIO. Thus I tried to have a single logical change contained in a single patch. I'm clearly no expert in this (Boris asked me in v3 to split patches because I did too many things in one patch :) ), so I would keep this as is, but if you still feel that it should be squashed, then I'll do it. Please let me know.
On 06/11/19 12:54 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: > > > On 11/05/2019 02:37 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote: >> On 02/11/19 4:53 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: >>> From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> >>> >>> Demystify where the EIO error occurs. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> >>> --- >> I think this is a small enough change that can be squashed into previous >> patch itself >> > > I made separate patches because this is a separate logical change. The previous > patch extends the check on all bits of the Status Register, while this one > prints a debug message in case of EIO. Thus I tried to have a single logical > change contained in a single patch. I'm clearly no expert in this (Boris asked > me in v3 to split patches because I did too many things in one patch :) ), so I > would keep this as is, but if you still feel that it should be squashed, then > I'll do it. Please let me know. > I am fine either way. I don't have a strong preference...
On 06/11/19 1:09 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote: > > > On 06/11/19 12:54 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: >> >> >> On 11/05/2019 02:37 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote: >>> On 02/11/19 4:53 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: >>>> From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> >>>> >>>> Demystify where the EIO error occurs. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> >>>> --- >>> I think this is a small enough change that can be squashed into previous >>> patch itself >>> >> >> I made separate patches because this is a separate logical change. The previous >> patch extends the check on all bits of the Status Register, while this one >> prints a debug message in case of EIO. Thus I tried to have a single logical >> change contained in a single patch. I'm clearly no expert in this (Boris asked >> me in v3 to split patches because I did too many things in one patch :) ), so I >> would keep this as is, but if you still feel that it should be squashed, then >> I'll do it. Please let me know. >> > > I am fine either way. I don't have a strong preference... > If you want to keep these separate: Reviewed-by: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com> Regards Vignesh
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c index 8f5e9833081b..725dab241271 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c @@ -974,7 +974,12 @@ static int spi_nor_write_sr_and_check(struct spi_nor *nor, u8 status_new) if (ret) return ret; - return (nor->bouncebuf[0] != status_new) ? -EIO : 0; + if (nor->bouncebuf[0] != status_new) { + dev_dbg(nor->dev, "SR: read back test failed\n"); + return -EIO; + } + + return 0; } /**