| Message ID | 20100621112049.GA9273@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | f7b000904a848b64c36e3b4d0715744aaf345767 |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 07:20, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > You can't easily change OF. It's like "let's change ACPI tables > or BIOS in these PCs". Doable, but involves things like reflashing. > And we usually have to support old BIOSes as well. > > OTOH, I see (git grep m25p arch/powerpc/boot/dts/) that in > mainline kernel only MPC8569 board has a correct m25p > node, and it is STMicro variant (it is JEDEC capable). > > As we don't really have to support out of tree code, I'd > just go with this patch, assuming that we have to change > device tree for boards with non-JEDEC flashes. It's > effectively the same thing as platform data flag, except > that it works automatically for OF platforms. > > 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) }, > + are you picking the m25p because its flash geometry matches whatever you're using, or because you have some weird variant of the m25p that has JEDEC commands removed ? -mike
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:34:05PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 07:20, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > You can't easily change OF. It's like "let's change ACPI tables > > or BIOS in these PCs". Doable, but involves things like reflashing. > > And we usually have to support old BIOSes as well. > > > > OTOH, I see (git grep m25p arch/powerpc/boot/dts/) that in > > mainline kernel only MPC8569 board has a correct m25p > > node, and it is STMicro variant (it is JEDEC capable). > > > > As we don't really have to support out of tree code, I'd > > just go with this patch, assuming that we have to change > > device tree for boards with non-JEDEC flashes. It's > > effectively the same thing as platform data flag, except > > that it works automatically for OF platforms. > > > > 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) }, > > + > > are you picking the m25p because its flash geometry matches whatever > you're using, or because you have some weird variant of the m25p that > has JEDEC commands removed ? The latter. It's Numonyx M25Pxx flashes, see http://www.numonyx.com/Documents/Datasheets/M25P80.pdf The RDID instruction is available only for parts made with 110 nm Technology identified with Process letter '4'.
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:47, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:34:05PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 07:20, Anton Vorontsov wrote: >> > You can't easily change OF. It's like "let's change ACPI tables >> > or BIOS in these PCs". Doable, but involves things like reflashing. >> > And we usually have to support old BIOSes as well. >> > >> > OTOH, I see (git grep m25p arch/powerpc/boot/dts/) that in >> > mainline kernel only MPC8569 board has a correct m25p >> > node, and it is STMicro variant (it is JEDEC capable). >> > >> > As we don't really have to support out of tree code, I'd >> > just go with this patch, assuming that we have to change >> > device tree for boards with non-JEDEC flashes. It's >> > effectively the same thing as platform data flag, except >> > that it works automatically for OF platforms. >> > >> > 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) }, >> > + >> >> are you picking the m25p because its flash geometry matches whatever >> you're using, or because you have some weird variant of the m25p that >> has JEDEC commands removed ? > > The latter. It's Numonyx M25Pxx flashes, see > http://www.numonyx.com/Documents/Datasheets/M25P80.pdf > > The RDID instruction is available only for parts made with 110 > nm Technology identified with Process letter '4'. lovely. i guess this patch is the way to go to satisfy everyone's requirements. i'm also of the mindset that a mtd should not be created if the SPI flash isnt there simply because the resources say it might be. -mike
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 06:31:44PM +0800, Barry Song wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 03:22:48PM +0800, Barry Song wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:27:31AM +0800, Barry Song wrote: >> >> > [...] >> >> >> > How about we add a non_jedec flag in platform_data, if the flag is 1, we >> >> >> > let the detection pass even though the ID is 0? Otherwise, we need a >> >> >> > valid ID? >> >> >> Here i mean: >> >> > >> >> > This will break at least OF-enabled platforms (e.g. PowerPC), >> >> > they assume that the driver will success for non-JEDEC flashes. >> >> > OF platforms don't pass platform data, and even if they did, >> >> > device tree doesn't specify if the flash is JEDEC or non-JEDEC. >> >> > >> >> > Which is why I think that, by default, the driver should >> >> > successfully register the flash even if JEDEC probe fails. So, >> >> > instead of checking for "!non_jedec", I would recommend >> >> > "force_jedec" check. >> >> >> >> Mike Frysinger suggested to use non_jedec since most devices are >> >> standard jedec devices. >> > >> > Well, on OF platforms most devices that I'm aware of are non-JEDEC. >> > >> >> Only if non_jedec=1, we let the detection pass >> >> if ID is 0. >> > >> > Then please #ifdef it with CONFIG_OF. >> I think the patch has nothing to do with platform. Here SPI Flash is a >> peripherals, doesn't depend on any platform. Adding a CONFIG_OF >> doesn't make sense very much. > > With OF we don't place non-existent devices into the device > tree (or we mark them with status = "not-ok/disabled/absent" > property). > >> If you think most devices are non-JEDEC, we can change non_JEDEC to >> force_JEDEC as you said. >> But anyway, is that real that most devices are non_JEDEC? > > Why would this matter? We have to support both. > >> If not, I think we should change OF platform codes to >> fit with this patch. > > You can't easily change OF. It's like "let's change ACPI tables > or BIOS in these PCs". Doable, but involves things like reflashing. > And we usually have to support old BIOSes as well. > > OTOH, I see (git grep m25p arch/powerpc/boot/dts/) that in > mainline kernel only MPC8569 board has a correct m25p > node, and it is STMicro variant (it is JEDEC capable). > > As we don't really have to support out of tree code, I'd > just go with this patch, assuming that we have to change > device tree for boards with non-JEDEC flashes. It's > effectively the same thing as platform data flag, except > that it works automatically for OF platforms. > > Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@mvista.com> > --- > > 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; The patch looks good to me. Only problem is NULL is also returned by spi_write_then_read() fail: static const struct spi_device_id *__devinit jedec_probe(struct spi_device *spi) { int tmp; u8 code = OPCODE_RDID; u8 id[5]; u32 jedec; u16 ext_jedec; struct flash_info *info; /* JEDEC also defines an optional "extended device information" * string for after vendor-specific data, after the three bytes * we use here. Supporting some chips might require using it. */ tmp = spi_write_then_read(spi, &code, 1, id, 5); if (tmp < 0) { DEBUG(MTD_DEBUG_LEVEL0, "%s: error %d reading JEDEC ID\n", dev_name(&spi->dev), tmp); return NULL; } ... } Here much better for -EIO (return tmp)? > } else if (jid != id) { > /* > * JEDEC knows better, so overwrite platform ID. We >
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 02:37:52PM +0800, Barry Song wrote: [...] > > jid = jedec_probe(spi); > > if (!jid) { > > - dev_info(&spi->dev, "non-JEDEC variant of %s\n", > > - id->name); > > + return -ENODEV; > The patch looks good to me. Only problem is NULL is also returned by > spi_write_then_read() fail: [...] > Here much better for -EIO (return tmp)? Agreed. Though, this is not a regression, and I guess desires its own patch. Here are two patches, one for 2.6.35 (minimal changes to fix the JEDEC problem), another for 2.6.36.
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