@@ -10,37 +10,27 @@
static const struct flash_info atmel_parts[] = {
/* Atmel -- some are (confusingly) marketed as "DataFlash" */
- { "at25fs010", INFO(0x1f6601, 0, 32 * 1024, 4, SECT_4K) },
- { "at25fs040", INFO(0x1f6604, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, SECT_4K) },
+ { "at25fs010", INFO(0x1f6601, 0, 32 * 1024, 4, SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
+ { "at25fs040", INFO(0x1f6604, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
- { "at25df041a", INFO(0x1f4401, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, SECT_4K) },
- { "at25df321", INFO(0x1f4700, 0, 64 * 1024, 64, SECT_4K) },
- { "at25df321a", INFO(0x1f4701, 0, 64 * 1024, 64, SECT_4K) },
- { "at25df641", INFO(0x1f4800, 0, 64 * 1024, 128, SECT_4K) },
+ { "at25df041a", INFO(0x1f4401, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
+ { "at25df321", INFO(0x1f4700, 0, 64 * 1024, 64, SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
+ { "at25df321a", INFO(0x1f4701, 0, 64 * 1024, 64, SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
+ { "at25df641", INFO(0x1f4800, 0, 64 * 1024, 128, SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
{ "at25sl321", INFO(0x1f4216, 0, 64 * 1024, 64,
SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) },
{ "at26f004", INFO(0x1f0400, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, SECT_4K) },
- { "at26df081a", INFO(0x1f4501, 0, 64 * 1024, 16, SECT_4K) },
- { "at26df161a", INFO(0x1f4601, 0, 64 * 1024, 32, SECT_4K) },
- { "at26df321", INFO(0x1f4700, 0, 64 * 1024, 64, SECT_4K) },
+ { "at26df081a", INFO(0x1f4501, 0, 64 * 1024, 16, SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
+ { "at26df161a", INFO(0x1f4601, 0, 64 * 1024, 32, SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
+ { "at26df321", INFO(0x1f4700, 0, 64 * 1024, 64, SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK) },
{ "at45db081d", INFO(0x1f2500, 0, 64 * 1024, 16, SECT_4K) },
};
-static void atmel_default_init(struct spi_nor *nor)
-{
- nor->flags |= SNOR_F_HAS_LOCK;
-}
-
-static const struct spi_nor_fixups atmel_fixups = {
- .default_init = atmel_default_init,
-};
-
const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_atmel = {
.name = "atmel",
.parts = atmel_parts,
.nparts = ARRAY_SIZE(atmel_parts),
- .fixups = &atmel_fixups,
};
This is considered bad for the following reasons: (1) We only support the block protection with BPn bits for write protection. Not all Atmel parts support this. (2) Newly added flash chip will automatically inherit the "has locking" support and thus needs to explicitly tested. Better be opt-in instead of opt-out. (3) There are already supported flashes which doesn't support the locking scheme. So I assume this wasn't properly tested before adding that chip; which enforces my previous argument that locking support should be an opt-in. Remove the global flag and add individual flags to all flashes which supports BP locking. In particular the following flashes don't support the BP scheme: - AT26F004 - AT25SL321 - AT45DB081D Please note, that some flashes which are marked as SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK just support Global Protection, i.e. not our supported block protection locking scheme. This is to keep backwards compatibility with the current "unlock all at boot" mechanism. In particular the following flashes doesn't have BP bits: - AT25DF041A - AT25DF321 - AT25DF321A - AT25DF641 - AT26DF081A - AT26DF161A - AT26DF321 Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> Reviewed-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> --- changes since v5: - none changes since v4: - none changes since v3/v2/v1: - there was no such version because this patch was bundled with another patch changes since RFC: - mention the flashes which just support the "Global Unprotect" in the commit message drivers/mtd/spi-nor/atmel.c | 28 +++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)