Patchwork [1/2] mtd: m25p80: Fix false-positive probing

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Anton Vorontsov
Date June 22, 2010, 4:57 p.m.
Message ID <20100622165734.GA20699@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/56530/
State Not Applicable
Headers show

Comments

Anton Vorontsov - June 22, 2010, 4:57 p.m.
Since commit 18c6182bae0acca220ed6611f741034d563cd19f ("Rework
probing/JEDEC code"), m25p80 driver successfully registers chips
even if JEDEC probing fails.

This was needed to support non-JEDEC flashes. Though, it appears
that some platforms (e.g. blackfin bf533 stamp[1]) used the old
behavior to detect if there's any flash connected, so the driver
have to fail on JEDEC probing errors.

This patch restores the old behavior for JEDEC flashes, and adds
"-nonjedec" SPI device IDs for M25Pxx flashes, so that the kernel
still supports non-JEDEC flashes.

[1] http://blackfin.uclinux.org/gf/project/uclinux-dist/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=5975

Reported-by: Mingquan Pan
Reported-by: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@mvista.com>
---

This is for 2.6.35.

 drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c |   13 +++++++++++--
 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Mike Frysinger - June 22, 2010, 5:56 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:57, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> Since commit 18c6182bae0acca220ed6611f741034d563cd19f ("Rework
> probing/JEDEC code"), m25p80 driver successfully registers chips
> even if JEDEC probing fails.
>
> This was needed to support non-JEDEC flashes. Though, it appears
> that some platforms (e.g. blackfin bf533 stamp[1]) used the old
> behavior to detect if there's any flash connected, so the driver
> have to fail on JEDEC probing errors.
>
> This patch restores the old behavior for JEDEC flashes, and adds
> "-nonjedec" SPI device IDs for M25Pxx flashes, so that the kernel
> still supports non-JEDEC flashes.

Acked-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>

> [1] http://blackfin.uclinux.org/gf/project/uclinux-dist/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=5975

http://blackfin.uclinux.org/gf/tracker/5975

> Reported-by: Mingquan Pan

<Grace.Pan@analog.com>
-mike
Artem Bityutskiy - July 8, 2010, 5:57 a.m.
On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 20:57 +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> Since commit 18c6182bae0acca220ed6611f741034d563cd19f ("Rework
> probing/JEDEC code"), m25p80 driver successfully registers chips
> even if JEDEC probing fails.
> 
> This was needed to support non-JEDEC flashes. Though, it appears
> that some platforms (e.g. blackfin bf533 stamp[1]) used the old
> behavior to detect if there's any flash connected, so the driver
> have to fail on JEDEC probing errors.
> 
> This patch restores the old behavior for JEDEC flashes, and adds
> "-nonjedec" SPI device IDs for M25Pxx flashes, so that the kernel
> still supports non-JEDEC flashes.
> 
> [1] http://blackfin.uclinux.org/gf/project/uclinux-dist/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=5975
> 
> Reported-by: Mingquan Pan
> Reported-by: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@mvista.com>
> ---

Pushed both patches to my l2-mtd-2.6.git / dunno, added Mike's ack.

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c b/drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c
index 81e49a9..a610ca9 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c
@@ -680,6 +680,16 @@  static const struct spi_device_id m25p_ids[] = {
 	{ "m25p64",  INFO(0x202017,  0,  64 * 1024, 128, 0) },
 	{ "m25p128", INFO(0x202018,  0, 256 * 1024,  64, 0) },
 
+	{ "m25p05-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  32 * 1024,   2, 0) },
+	{ "m25p10-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  32 * 1024,   4, 0) },
+	{ "m25p20-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  64 * 1024,   4, 0) },
+	{ "m25p40-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  64 * 1024,   8, 0) },
+	{ "m25p80-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  64 * 1024,  16, 0) },
+	{ "m25p16-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  64 * 1024,  32, 0) },
+	{ "m25p32-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  64 * 1024,  64, 0) },
+	{ "m25p64-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  64 * 1024, 128, 0) },
+	{ "m25p128-nonjedec", INFO(0, 0, 256 * 1024,  64, 0) },
+
 	{ "m45pe10", INFO(0x204011,  0, 64 * 1024,    2, 0) },
 	{ "m45pe80", INFO(0x204014,  0, 64 * 1024,   16, 0) },
 	{ "m45pe16", INFO(0x204015,  0, 64 * 1024,   32, 0) },
@@ -795,8 +805,7 @@  static int __devinit m25p_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
 
 		jid = jedec_probe(spi);
 		if (!jid) {
-			dev_info(&spi->dev, "non-JEDEC variant of %s\n",
-				 id->name);
+			return -ENODEV;
 		} else if (jid != id) {
 			/*
 			 * JEDEC knows better, so overwrite platform ID. We