| Message ID | 20210509144716.431650-1-mail@david-bauer.net |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Ambarus Tudor |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mtd: spi-nor: Add support for BoHong bh25q128as | expand |
Hi David, Am 2021-05-09 16:47, schrieb David Bauer: > Add MTD support for the BoHong bh25q128as SPI NOR chip. > The chip has 16MB of total capacity, divided into a total of 256 > sectors, each 64KB sized. The chip also supports 4KB sectors. > Additionally, it supports dual and quad read modes. > > Functionality was verified on an Tenbay WR1800K / MTK MT7621 board. > > Signed-off-by: David Bauer <mail@david-bauer.net> > --- > drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/mtd/spi-nor/bohong.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 1 + > drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h | 1 + > 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/bohong.c > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile > b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile > index 653923896205..de0b2d3bcb1c 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile > +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ > > spi-nor-objs := core.o sfdp.o > spi-nor-objs += atmel.o > +spi-nor-objs += bohong.o > spi-nor-objs += catalyst.o > spi-nor-objs += eon.o > spi-nor-objs += esmt.o > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/bohong.c > b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/bohong.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..20aeceb1b2d1 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/bohong.c > @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +/* > + * Copyright (C) 2005, Intec Automation Inc. > + * Copyright (C) 2014, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. I guess this could be dropped. There is no much left from these in this file. > + */ > + > +#include <linux/mtd/spi-nor.h> > + > +#include "core.h" > + > +static const struct flash_info bohong_parts[] = { > + /* BoHong Microelectronics */ > + { "bh25q128as", INFO(0x684018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, I couldn't find "BoHong" in JEP106BC. 0x68 (without continuation codes) is "Convex Computer". So this is wrong. OTOH I'm not sure, how many SPI flashes "convex computer" have, if any ;) This company was brought by HP in the end. In any case, this patch depends on how we handle continuation codes or if we can handle them at all. Or if this flash just lie about its manufacturer id and don't and CC. See also: https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/2/7/223 https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg3808260.html > + SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) }, > +}; > + > +const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_bohong = { > + .name = "bohong", > + .parts = bohong_parts, > + .nparts = ARRAY_SIZE(bohong_parts), > +}; > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c > index 0522304f52fa..03a05bce6231 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c > @@ -2199,6 +2199,7 @@ int spi_nor_sr2_bit7_quad_enable(struct spi_nor > *nor) > > static const struct spi_nor_manufacturer *manufacturers[] = { > &spi_nor_atmel, > + &spi_nor_bohong, > &spi_nor_catalyst, > &spi_nor_eon, > &spi_nor_esmt, > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h > index 4a3f7f150b5d..b71323317235 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h > +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h > @@ -409,6 +409,7 @@ struct spi_nor_manufacturer { > > /* Manufacturer drivers. */ > extern const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_atmel; > +extern const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_bohong; > extern const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_catalyst; > extern const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_eon; > extern const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_esmt;
Hi Michael, thanks for your review. On 5/10/21 10:00 AM, Michael Walle wrote [...] >> +static const struct flash_info bohong_parts[] = { >> + /* BoHong Microelectronics */ >> + { "bh25q128as", INFO(0x684018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, > > I couldn't find "BoHong" in JEP106BC. 0x68 (without continuation codes) > is "Convex Computer". So this is wrong. OTOH I'm not sure, how many > SPI flashes "convex computer" have, if any ;) This company was brought > by HP in the end. > > In any case, this patch depends on how we handle continuation codes or > if we can handle them at all. Or if this flash just lie about its > manufacturer id and don't and CC. First of all, BoHong and Boya microelectronics seems to be the same company, as their datasheets seem to copy each other. There's not much information about either of both, so I'd say that's a fair assumption. Regarding the continuation codes, Boya is listed in bank nine, however in this case I should currently read an all 0x7f ID shouldn't I? The datasheet also only specifies 3 bytes as a return value for register 0x9fh :( Best David > > See also: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/2/7/223 > https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg3808260.html > >> + SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) }, >> +}; >> + >> +const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_bohong = { >> + .name = "bohong", >> + .parts = bohong_parts, >> + .nparts = ARRAY_SIZE(bohong_parts), >> +}; >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c >> index 0522304f52fa..03a05bce6231 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c >> @@ -2199,6 +2199,7 @@ int spi_nor_sr2_bit7_quad_enable(struct spi_nor *nor) >> >> static const struct spi_nor_manufacturer *manufacturers[] = { >> &spi_nor_atmel, >> + &spi_nor_bohong, >> &spi_nor_catalyst, >> &spi_nor_eon, >> &spi_nor_esmt, >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h >> index 4a3f7f150b5d..b71323317235 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h >> @@ -409,6 +409,7 @@ struct spi_nor_manufacturer { >> >> /* Manufacturer drivers. */ >> extern const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_atmel; >> +extern const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_bohong; >> extern const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_catalyst; >> extern const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_eon; >> extern const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_esmt; >
Hi David, Am 2021-05-10 11:28, schrieb David Bauer: > On 5/10/21 10:00 AM, Michael Walle wrote > > [...] > >>> +static const struct flash_info bohong_parts[] = { >>> + /* BoHong Microelectronics */ >>> + { "bh25q128as", INFO(0x684018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, >> >> I couldn't find "BoHong" in JEP106BC. 0x68 (without continuation >> codes) >> is "Convex Computer". So this is wrong. OTOH I'm not sure, how many >> SPI flashes "convex computer" have, if any ;) This company was brought >> by HP in the end. >> >> In any case, this patch depends on how we handle continuation codes or >> if we can handle them at all. Or if this flash just lie about its >> manufacturer id and don't and CC. > > First of all, BoHong and Boya microelectronics seems to be the same > company, as their datasheets seem to copy each other. There's not much > information about either of both, so I'd say that's a fair assumption. > > Regarding the continuation codes, Boya is listed in bank nine, however > in this case I should currently read an all 0x7f ID shouldn't I? I'd guess so, yes. > The datasheet also only specifies 3 bytes as a return value for > register 0x9fh :( Yeah. So, this flash falls into the same category "simply hijacks a manuf id" as all the other flashes. We still need to come up with a solution for this problem. -michael
Hi Michael, On 5/10/21 11:35 AM, Michael Walle wrote: > Hi David, > > Am 2021-05-10 11:28, schrieb David Bauer: >> On 5/10/21 10:00 AM, Michael Walle wrote >> >> [...] >> >>>> +static const struct flash_info bohong_parts[] = { >>>> + /* BoHong Microelectronics */ >>>> + { "bh25q128as", INFO(0x684018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, >>> >>> I couldn't find "BoHong" in JEP106BC. 0x68 (without continuation codes) >>> is "Convex Computer". So this is wrong. OTOH I'm not sure, how many >>> SPI flashes "convex computer" have, if any ;) This company was brought >>> by HP in the end. >>> >>> In any case, this patch depends on how we handle continuation codes or >>> if we can handle them at all. Or if this flash just lie about its >>> manufacturer id and don't and CC. >> >> First of all, BoHong and Boya microelectronics seems to be the same >> company, as their datasheets seem to copy each other. There's not much >> information about either of both, so I'd say that's a fair assumption. >> >> Regarding the continuation codes, Boya is listed in bank nine, however >> in this case I should currently read an all 0x7f ID shouldn't I? > > I'd guess so, yes. > >> The datasheet also only specifies 3 bytes as a return value for >> register 0x9fh :( > > Yeah. So, this flash falls into the same category "simply hijacks > a manuf id" as all the other flashes. From a quick check, this is also be the case for GigaDevices and XMC. My spontaneous idea would be to extend support for JEDEC IDs to read the up to 9 banks of the vendor ID and fix up the existing offenders. To not break existing boards, we could either skip the continuation bytes of the kernel ID definitions for all flash chips or flag the already existing ones and only perform this on such flagged chips. Personally, I'd say that only performing this on existing chips would be better, as new vendors with this violation scheme might probably appear and cause conflicts. As we still lack auto detection for new chips with that, configuring the flash chip used with the chip name via DT would allow to set the exact chip used and also validate if the manufacturer / product after the continuation bits matches the one read from the chip. What do you think? Best David > > We still need to come up with a solution for this problem. > > -michael
Am 2021-05-10 12:27, schrieb David Bauer: > On 5/10/21 11:35 AM, Michael Walle wrote: >> Am 2021-05-10 11:28, schrieb David Bauer: >>> On 5/10/21 10:00 AM, Michael Walle wrote >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>> +static const struct flash_info bohong_parts[] = { >>>>> + /* BoHong Microelectronics */ >>>>> + { "bh25q128as", INFO(0x684018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, >>>> >>>> I couldn't find "BoHong" in JEP106BC. 0x68 (without continuation >>>> codes) >>>> is "Convex Computer". So this is wrong. OTOH I'm not sure, how many >>>> SPI flashes "convex computer" have, if any ;) This company was >>>> brought >>>> by HP in the end. >>>> >>>> In any case, this patch depends on how we handle continuation codes >>>> or >>>> if we can handle them at all. Or if this flash just lie about its >>>> manufacturer id and don't and CC. >>> >>> First of all, BoHong and Boya microelectronics seems to be the same >>> company, as their datasheets seem to copy each other. There's not >>> much >>> information about either of both, so I'd say that's a fair >>> assumption. >>> >>> Regarding the continuation codes, Boya is listed in bank nine, >>> however >>> in this case I should currently read an all 0x7f ID shouldn't I? >> >> I'd guess so, yes. >> >>> The datasheet also only specifies 3 bytes as a return value for >>> register 0x9fh :( >> >> Yeah. So, this flash falls into the same category "simply hijacks >> a manuf id" as all the other flashes. > > From a quick check, this is also be the case for GigaDevices and XMC. > > My spontaneous idea would be to extend support for JEDEC IDs to read > the up to 9 banks of the vendor ID and fix up the existing offenders. you mean gigadevices and xmc? I'd presume they are also lacking the continuation bytes. > To not break existing boards, we could either skip the continuation > bytes of the kernel ID definitions for all flash chips or flag the > already existing ones and only perform this on such flagged chips. > > Personally, I'd say that only performing this on existing chips would > be better, as new vendors with this violation scheme might probably > appear and cause conflicts. > > As we still lack auto detection for new chips with that, configuring > the flash chip used with the chip name via DT would allow to set the > exact chip used and also validate if the manufacturer / product after > the continuation bits matches the one read from the chip. > > What do you think? If you'd ask me, unless there is a real world conflict, I'd just go ahead and add them as is. If there is a conflict we'd need to find a per device resolution for it. There is another problem: shared device ids per vendor. Some (most?) flash vendor share device ids on "similar" flashes, which we still need tell apart in the kernel. So technically, this is the same problem as with non-existing continuation bytes. Two different flashes sharing the same id. For now, we look for differences in the SFDP. Right now, the flash is probed first by its id and the the SFDP is read and parsed. There are ideas to first read the SFDP. Having this might come in handy here, too. Eg. we could fingerprint the flash by its SFDP. I know Vingesh is working on the continuation bytes stuff. So I might be late to the party ;) Regarding the device tree compatibles, the maintainers doesn't like that very much. Maybe as a last resort method. -michael
Hi Michael, On 5/10/21 12:56 PM, Michael Walle wrote: > Am 2021-05-10 12:27, schrieb David Bauer: >> On 5/10/21 11:35 AM, Michael Walle wrote: >>> Am 2021-05-10 11:28, schrieb David Bauer: >>>> On 5/10/21 10:00 AM, Michael Walle wrote >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>>> +static const struct flash_info bohong_parts[] = { >>>>>> + /* BoHong Microelectronics */ >>>>>> + { "bh25q128as", INFO(0x684018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, >>>>> >>>>> I couldn't find "BoHong" in JEP106BC. 0x68 (without continuation codes) >>>>> is "Convex Computer". So this is wrong. OTOH I'm not sure, how many >>>>> SPI flashes "convex computer" have, if any ;) This company was brought >>>>> by HP in the end. >>>>> >>>>> In any case, this patch depends on how we handle continuation codes or >>>>> if we can handle them at all. Or if this flash just lie about its >>>>> manufacturer id and don't and CC. >>>> >>>> First of all, BoHong and Boya microelectronics seems to be the same >>>> company, as their datasheets seem to copy each other. There's not much >>>> information about either of both, so I'd say that's a fair assumption. >>>> >>>> Regarding the continuation codes, Boya is listed in bank nine, however >>>> in this case I should currently read an all 0x7f ID shouldn't I? >>> >>> I'd guess so, yes. >>> >>>> The datasheet also only specifies 3 bytes as a return value for >>>> register 0x9fh :( >>> >>> Yeah. So, this flash falls into the same category "simply hijacks >>> a manuf id" as all the other flashes. >> >> From a quick check, this is also be the case for GigaDevices and XMC. >> >> My spontaneous idea would be to extend support for JEDEC IDs to read >> the up to 9 banks of the vendor ID and fix up the existing offenders. > > you mean gigadevices and xmc? I'd presume they are also lacking the > continuation bytes. Correct, same story with them. > >> To not break existing boards, we could either skip the continuation >> bytes of the kernel ID definitions for all flash chips or flag the >> already existing ones and only perform this on such flagged chips. >> >> Personally, I'd say that only performing this on existing chips would >> be better, as new vendors with this violation scheme might probably >> appear and cause conflicts. >> >> As we still lack auto detection for new chips with that, configuring >> the flash chip used with the chip name via DT would allow to set the >> exact chip used and also validate if the manufacturer / product after >> the continuation bits matches the one read from the chip. >> >> What do you think? > > If you'd ask me, unless there is a real world conflict, I'd just go > ahead and add them as is. If there is a conflict we'd need to find > a per device resolution for it. Okay, I'll resend a v2 with the removed copyright then. > > There is another problem: shared device ids per vendor. Some (most?) > flash vendor share device ids on "similar" flashes, which we still > need tell apart in the kernel. So technically, this is the same problem > as with non-existing continuation bytes. Two different flashes sharing > the same id. For now, we look for differences in the SFDP. > > Right now, the flash is probed first by its id and the the SFDP is > read and parsed. There are ideas to first read the SFDP. Having this > might come in handy here, too. Eg. we could fingerprint the flash > by its SFDP. I was also thinking about that and we're also already bitten by identical JEDEC IDs for different models. It's really a pity that there is no real unique model identifier for us to use, which is not hacked to support legacy implementations like with this chip :( Best David > > I know Vingesh is working on the continuation bytes stuff. So I might > be late to the party ;) > > Regarding the device tree compatibles, the maintainers doesn't like > that very much. Maybe as a last resort method. > > -michael
Hi David, Am 2021-05-10 13:04, schrieb David Bauer: > On 5/10/21 12:56 PM, Michael Walle wrote: >> Am 2021-05-10 12:27, schrieb David Bauer: >>> On 5/10/21 11:35 AM, Michael Walle wrote: >>>> Am 2021-05-10 11:28, schrieb David Bauer: >>>>> On 5/10/21 10:00 AM, Michael Walle wrote >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>>> +static const struct flash_info bohong_parts[] = { >>>>>>> + /* BoHong Microelectronics */ >>>>>>> + { "bh25q128as", INFO(0x684018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, >>>>>> >>>>>> I couldn't find "BoHong" in JEP106BC. 0x68 (without continuation >>>>>> codes) >>>>>> is "Convex Computer". So this is wrong. OTOH I'm not sure, how >>>>>> many >>>>>> SPI flashes "convex computer" have, if any ;) This company was >>>>>> brought >>>>>> by HP in the end. >>>>>> >>>>>> In any case, this patch depends on how we handle continuation >>>>>> codes or >>>>>> if we can handle them at all. Or if this flash just lie about its >>>>>> manufacturer id and don't and CC. >>>>> >>>>> First of all, BoHong and Boya microelectronics seems to be the same >>>>> company, as their datasheets seem to copy each other. There's not >>>>> much >>>>> information about either of both, so I'd say that's a fair >>>>> assumption. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding the continuation codes, Boya is listed in bank nine, >>>>> however >>>>> in this case I should currently read an all 0x7f ID shouldn't I? >>>> >>>> I'd guess so, yes. >>>> >>>>> The datasheet also only specifies 3 bytes as a return value for >>>>> register 0x9fh :( >>>> >>>> Yeah. So, this flash falls into the same category "simply hijacks >>>> a manuf id" as all the other flashes. >>> >>> From a quick check, this is also be the case for GigaDevices and XMC. >>> >>> My spontaneous idea would be to extend support for JEDEC IDs to read >>> the up to 9 banks of the vendor ID and fix up the existing offenders. >> >> you mean gigadevices and xmc? I'd presume they are also lacking the >> continuation bytes. > > Correct, same story with them. > >> >>> To not break existing boards, we could either skip the continuation >>> bytes of the kernel ID definitions for all flash chips or flag the >>> already existing ones and only perform this on such flagged chips. >>> >>> Personally, I'd say that only performing this on existing chips would >>> be better, as new vendors with this violation scheme might probably >>> appear and cause conflicts. >>> >>> As we still lack auto detection for new chips with that, configuring >>> the flash chip used with the chip name via DT would allow to set the >>> exact chip used and also validate if the manufacturer / product after >>> the continuation bits matches the one read from the chip. >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> If you'd ask me, unless there is a real world conflict, I'd just go >> ahead and add them as is. If there is a conflict we'd need to find >> a per device resolution for it. > > Okay, I'll resend a v2 with the removed copyright then. Could you also apply my SFDP patch [1] and send the dump (if there is any)? Unfortunately, I can't think of a good way to do that along with the patch and if this in some way regarded as copyrighted material. So feel free to send it to me privately. I'm starting to build a database. >> There is another problem: shared device ids per vendor. Some (most?) >> flash vendor share device ids on "similar" flashes, which we still >> need tell apart in the kernel. So technically, this is the same >> problem >> as with non-existing continuation bytes. Two different flashes sharing >> the same id. For now, we look for differences in the SFDP. >> >> Right now, the flash is probed first by its id and the the SFDP is >> read and parsed. There are ideas to first read the SFDP. Having this >> might come in handy here, too. Eg. we could fingerprint the flash >> by its SFDP. > > I was also thinking about that and we're also already bitten by > identical > JEDEC IDs for different models. It's really a pity that there is no > real > unique model identifier for us to use, which is not hacked to support > legacy implementations like with this chip :( Unfortunately, they aren't legacy and new chips still have this behavior.. -michael [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/20210503155651.30889-1-michael@walle.cc/
Hi Michael, Sorry for the late reply, was not feeling well past week. On 5/10/21 1:22 PM, Michael Walle wrote: > Hi David, > > Am 2021-05-10 13:04, schrieb David Bauer: >> On 5/10/21 12:56 PM, Michael Walle wrote: >>> Am 2021-05-10 12:27, schrieb David Bauer: >>>> On 5/10/21 11:35 AM, Michael Walle wrote: >>>>> Am 2021-05-10 11:28, schrieb David Bauer: >>>>>> On 5/10/21 10:00 AM, Michael Walle wrote >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>>>> +static const struct flash_info bohong_parts[] = { >>>>>>>> + /* BoHong Microelectronics */ >>>>>>>> + { "bh25q128as", INFO(0x684018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I couldn't find "BoHong" in JEP106BC. 0x68 (without continuation codes) >>>>>>> is "Convex Computer". So this is wrong. OTOH I'm not sure, how many >>>>>>> SPI flashes "convex computer" have, if any ;) This company was brought >>>>>>> by HP in the end. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In any case, this patch depends on how we handle continuation codes or >>>>>>> if we can handle them at all. Or if this flash just lie about its >>>>>>> manufacturer id and don't and CC. >>>>>> >>>>>> First of all, BoHong and Boya microelectronics seems to be the same >>>>>> company, as their datasheets seem to copy each other. There's not much >>>>>> information about either of both, so I'd say that's a fair assumption. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding the continuation codes, Boya is listed in bank nine, however >>>>>> in this case I should currently read an all 0x7f ID shouldn't I? >>>>> >>>>> I'd guess so, yes. >>>>> >>>>>> The datasheet also only specifies 3 bytes as a return value for >>>>>> register 0x9fh :( >>>>> >>>>> Yeah. So, this flash falls into the same category "simply hijacks >>>>> a manuf id" as all the other flashes. >>>> >>>> From a quick check, this is also be the case for GigaDevices and XMC. >>>> >>>> My spontaneous idea would be to extend support for JEDEC IDs to read >>>> the up to 9 banks of the vendor ID and fix up the existing offenders. >>> >>> you mean gigadevices and xmc? I'd presume they are also lacking the >>> continuation bytes. >> >> Correct, same story with them. >> >>> >>>> To not break existing boards, we could either skip the continuation >>>> bytes of the kernel ID definitions for all flash chips or flag the >>>> already existing ones and only perform this on such flagged chips. >>>> >>>> Personally, I'd say that only performing this on existing chips would >>>> be better, as new vendors with this violation scheme might probably >>>> appear and cause conflicts. >>>> >>>> As we still lack auto detection for new chips with that, configuring >>>> the flash chip used with the chip name via DT would allow to set the >>>> exact chip used and also validate if the manufacturer / product after >>>> the continuation bits matches the one read from the chip. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> If you'd ask me, unless there is a real world conflict, I'd just go >>> ahead and add them as is. If there is a conflict we'd need to find >>> a per device resolution for it. >> >> Okay, I'll resend a v2 with the removed copyright then. > > Could you also apply my SFDP patch [1] and send the dump (if there > is any)? Unfortunately, I can't think of a good way to do that along > with the patch and if this in some way regarded as copyrighted material. > So feel free to send it to me privately. I'm starting to build a > database. Bad news, I'm not able to get a SFDP with your patches, as the SFDP extraction fails at the version check. Is there anything else I can try? Best David > >>> There is another problem: shared device ids per vendor. Some (most?) >>> flash vendor share device ids on "similar" flashes, which we still >>> need tell apart in the kernel. So technically, this is the same problem >>> as with non-existing continuation bytes. Two different flashes sharing >>> the same id. For now, we look for differences in the SFDP. >>> >>> Right now, the flash is probed first by its id and the the SFDP is >>> read and parsed. There are ideas to first read the SFDP. Having this >>> might come in handy here, too. Eg. we could fingerprint the flash >>> by its SFDP. >> >> I was also thinking about that and we're also already bitten by identical >> JEDEC IDs for different models. It's really a pity that there is no real >> unique model identifier for us to use, which is not hacked to support >> legacy implementations like with this chip :( > > Unfortunately, they aren't legacy and new chips still have this > behavior.. > > -michael > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/20210503155651.30889-1-michael@walle.cc/
On 5/18/21 10:39 PM, David Bauer wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > Hi Michael, > > Sorry for the late reply, was not feeling well past week. > > On 5/10/21 1:22 PM, Michael Walle wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> Am 2021-05-10 13:04, schrieb David Bauer: >>> On 5/10/21 12:56 PM, Michael Walle wrote: >>>> Am 2021-05-10 12:27, schrieb David Bauer: >>>>> On 5/10/21 11:35 AM, Michael Walle wrote: >>>>>> Am 2021-05-10 11:28, schrieb David Bauer: >>>>>>> On 5/10/21 10:00 AM, Michael Walle wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +static const struct flash_info bohong_parts[] = { >>>>>>>>> + /* BoHong Microelectronics */ >>>>>>>>> + { "bh25q128as", INFO(0x684018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I couldn't find "BoHong" in JEP106BC. 0x68 (without continuation codes) >>>>>>>> is "Convex Computer". So this is wrong. OTOH I'm not sure, how many >>>>>>>> SPI flashes "convex computer" have, if any ;) This company was brought >>>>>>>> by HP in the end. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In any case, this patch depends on how we handle continuation codes or >>>>>>>> if we can handle them at all. Or if this flash just lie about its >>>>>>>> manufacturer id and don't and CC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First of all, BoHong and Boya microelectronics seems to be the same >>>>>>> company, as their datasheets seem to copy each other. There's not much >>>>>>> information about either of both, so I'd say that's a fair assumption. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding the continuation codes, Boya is listed in bank nine, however >>>>>>> in this case I should currently read an all 0x7f ID shouldn't I? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd guess so, yes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The datasheet also only specifies 3 bytes as a return value for >>>>>>> register 0x9fh :( >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah. So, this flash falls into the same category "simply hijacks >>>>>> a manuf id" as all the other flashes. >>>>> >>>>> From a quick check, this is also be the case for GigaDevices and XMC. >>>>> >>>>> My spontaneous idea would be to extend support for JEDEC IDs to read >>>>> the up to 9 banks of the vendor ID and fix up the existing offenders. >>>> >>>> you mean gigadevices and xmc? I'd presume they are also lacking the >>>> continuation bytes. >>> >>> Correct, same story with them. >>> >>>> >>>>> To not break existing boards, we could either skip the continuation >>>>> bytes of the kernel ID definitions for all flash chips or flag the >>>>> already existing ones and only perform this on such flagged chips. >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I'd say that only performing this on existing chips would >>>>> be better, as new vendors with this violation scheme might probably >>>>> appear and cause conflicts. >>>>> >>>>> As we still lack auto detection for new chips with that, configuring >>>>> the flash chip used with the chip name via DT would allow to set the >>>>> exact chip used and also validate if the manufacturer / product after >>>>> the continuation bits matches the one read from the chip. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> If you'd ask me, unless there is a real world conflict, I'd just go >>>> ahead and add them as is. If there is a conflict we'd need to find >>>> a per device resolution for it. >>> >>> Okay, I'll resend a v2 with the removed copyright then. >> >> Could you also apply my SFDP patch [1] and send the dump (if there >> is any)? Unfortunately, I can't think of a good way to do that along >> with the patch and if this in some way regarded as copyrighted material. >> So feel free to send it to me privately. I'm starting to build a >> database. > > Bad news, I'm not able to get a SFDP with your patches, as the SFDP extraction > fails at the version check. > > Is there anything else I can try? > So no SFDP data? Have you tried to read more of ID bytes, maybe there's an extended ID? Please dump 15 bytes of ID.
On 6/28/21 8:48 AM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On 5/18/21 10:39 PM, David Bauer wrote: >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> Sorry for the late reply, was not feeling well past week. >> >> On 5/10/21 1:22 PM, Michael Walle wrote: >>> Hi David, >>> >>> Am 2021-05-10 13:04, schrieb David Bauer: >>>> On 5/10/21 12:56 PM, Michael Walle wrote: >>>>> Am 2021-05-10 12:27, schrieb David Bauer: >>>>>> On 5/10/21 11:35 AM, Michael Walle wrote: >>>>>>> Am 2021-05-10 11:28, schrieb David Bauer: >>>>>>>> On 5/10/21 10:00 AM, Michael Walle wrote >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +static const struct flash_info bohong_parts[] = { >>>>>>>>>> + /* BoHong Microelectronics */ >>>>>>>>>> + { "bh25q128as", INFO(0x684018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I couldn't find "BoHong" in JEP106BC. 0x68 (without continuation codes) >>>>>>>>> is "Convex Computer". So this is wrong. OTOH I'm not sure, how many >>>>>>>>> SPI flashes "convex computer" have, if any ;) This company was brought >>>>>>>>> by HP in the end. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In any case, this patch depends on how we handle continuation codes or >>>>>>>>> if we can handle them at all. Or if this flash just lie about its >>>>>>>>> manufacturer id and don't and CC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First of all, BoHong and Boya microelectronics seems to be the same >>>>>>>> company, as their datasheets seem to copy each other. There's not much >>>>>>>> information about either of both, so I'd say that's a fair assumption. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding the continuation codes, Boya is listed in bank nine, however >>>>>>>> in this case I should currently read an all 0x7f ID shouldn't I? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd guess so, yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The datasheet also only specifies 3 bytes as a return value for >>>>>>>> register 0x9fh :( >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah. So, this flash falls into the same category "simply hijacks >>>>>>> a manuf id" as all the other flashes. >>>>>> >>>>>> From a quick check, this is also be the case for GigaDevices and XMC. >>>>>> >>>>>> My spontaneous idea would be to extend support for JEDEC IDs to read >>>>>> the up to 9 banks of the vendor ID and fix up the existing offenders. >>>>> >>>>> you mean gigadevices and xmc? I'd presume they are also lacking the >>>>> continuation bytes. >>>> >>>> Correct, same story with them. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> To not break existing boards, we could either skip the continuation >>>>>> bytes of the kernel ID definitions for all flash chips or flag the >>>>>> already existing ones and only perform this on such flagged chips. >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally, I'd say that only performing this on existing chips would >>>>>> be better, as new vendors with this violation scheme might probably >>>>>> appear and cause conflicts. >>>>>> >>>>>> As we still lack auto detection for new chips with that, configuring >>>>>> the flash chip used with the chip name via DT would allow to set the >>>>>> exact chip used and also validate if the manufacturer / product after >>>>>> the continuation bits matches the one read from the chip. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> If you'd ask me, unless there is a real world conflict, I'd just go >>>>> ahead and add them as is. If there is a conflict we'd need to find >>>>> a per device resolution for it. >>>> >>>> Okay, I'll resend a v2 with the removed copyright then. >>> >>> Could you also apply my SFDP patch [1] and send the dump (if there >>> is any)? Unfortunately, I can't think of a good way to do that along >>> with the patch and if this in some way regarded as copyrighted material. >>> So feel free to send it to me privately. I'm starting to build a >>> database. >> >> Bad news, I'm not able to get a SFDP with your patches, as the SFDP extraction >> fails at the version check. >> >> Is there anything else I can try? >> > > So no SFDP data? > Have you tried to read more of ID bytes, maybe there's an extended ID? Please > dump 15 bytes of ID. what's the difference between by25q128as and bh25q128as? I see they share the same flash ID.
Hi Tudor, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com writes: > On 6/28/21 8:48 AM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe >> >> On 5/18/21 10:39 PM, David Bauer wrote: >>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> Sorry for the late reply, was not feeling well past week. >>> >>> On 5/10/21 1:22 PM, Michael Walle wrote: >>>> Hi David, >>>> >>>> Am 2021-05-10 13:04, schrieb David Bauer: >>>>> On 5/10/21 12:56 PM, Michael Walle wrote: >>>>>> Am 2021-05-10 12:27, schrieb David Bauer: >>>>>>> On 5/10/21 11:35 AM, Michael Walle wrote: >>>>>>>> Am 2021-05-10 11:28, schrieb David Bauer: >>>>>>>>> On 5/10/21 10:00 AM, Michael Walle wrote >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +static const struct flash_info bohong_parts[] = { >>>>>>>>>>> + /* BoHong Microelectronics */ >>>>>>>>>>> + { "bh25q128as", INFO(0x684018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I couldn't find "BoHong" in JEP106BC. 0x68 (without continuation codes) >>>>>>>>>> is "Convex Computer". So this is wrong. OTOH I'm not sure, how many >>>>>>>>>> SPI flashes "convex computer" have, if any ;) This company was brought >>>>>>>>>> by HP in the end. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In any case, this patch depends on how we handle continuation codes or >>>>>>>>>> if we can handle them at all. Or if this flash just lie about its >>>>>>>>>> manufacturer id and don't and CC. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> First of all, BoHong and Boya microelectronics seems to be the same >>>>>>>>> company, as their datasheets seem to copy each other. There's not much >>>>>>>>> information about either of both, so I'd say that's a fair assumption. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regarding the continuation codes, Boya is listed in bank nine, however >>>>>>>>> in this case I should currently read an all 0x7f ID shouldn't I? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd guess so, yes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The datasheet also only specifies 3 bytes as a return value for >>>>>>>>> register 0x9fh :( >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeah. So, this flash falls into the same category "simply hijacks >>>>>>>> a manuf id" as all the other flashes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From a quick check, this is also be the case for GigaDevices and XMC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My spontaneous idea would be to extend support for JEDEC IDs to read >>>>>>> the up to 9 banks of the vendor ID and fix up the existing offenders. >>>>>> >>>>>> you mean gigadevices and xmc? I'd presume they are also lacking the >>>>>> continuation bytes. >>>>> >>>>> Correct, same story with them. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> To not break existing boards, we could either skip the continuation >>>>>>> bytes of the kernel ID definitions for all flash chips or flag the >>>>>>> already existing ones and only perform this on such flagged chips. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Personally, I'd say that only performing this on existing chips would >>>>>>> be better, as new vendors with this violation scheme might probably >>>>>>> appear and cause conflicts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As we still lack auto detection for new chips with that, configuring >>>>>>> the flash chip used with the chip name via DT would allow to set the >>>>>>> exact chip used and also validate if the manufacturer / product after >>>>>>> the continuation bits matches the one read from the chip. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> If you'd ask me, unless there is a real world conflict, I'd just go >>>>>> ahead and add them as is. If there is a conflict we'd need to find >>>>>> a per device resolution for it. >>>>> >>>>> Okay, I'll resend a v2 with the removed copyright then. >>>> >>>> Could you also apply my SFDP patch [1] and send the dump (if there >>>> is any)? Unfortunately, I can't think of a good way to do that along >>>> with the patch and if this in some way regarded as copyrighted material. >>>> So feel free to send it to me privately. I'm starting to build a >>>> database. >>> >>> Bad news, I'm not able to get a SFDP with your patches, as the SFDP extraction >>> fails at the version check. >>> >>> Is there anything else I can try? >>> >> >> So no SFDP data? >> Have you tried to read more of ID bytes, maybe there's an extended ID? Please >> dump 15 bytes of ID. > > what's the difference between by25q128as and bh25q128as? I see they share the > same flash ID. > I've got the by25q128as, so I compiled the SFDP and sysfs patch kernel to read it out. figgyc@figgyc-pi:~ $ ls /sys/class/spi_master/spi0/spi0.0/spi-nor/ jedec_id manufacturer partname $ cat /sys/class/spi_master/spi0/spi0.0/spi-nor/jedec_id 684018 $ cat /sys/class/spi_master/spi0/spi0.0/spi-nor/manufacturer boya $ cat /sys/class/spi_master/spi0/spi0.0/spi-nor/partname by25q128as (this is using my patch for the chip support) There was no sfdp file for me either, failed the version check like David's chip (I added a dev_dbg to check). One thing I noticed reading the datasheet[1] again was this line: "Security Register 0 can be used to store the Flash Discoverable Parameters, The feature is upon special order, please contact Boya Microelectronics for details." The same line is also present in the BoHong datasheet but it says HuaHong instead of Boya. That makes me wonder if the meaning of "Discoverable Parameters (SFDP) register" in the datasheet does not actually mean that it has SFDP data programmed in by default, which would be quite strange, but if true then that would be quite annoying because then I don't think there are any differences between Boya and BoHong. Very strange design decision in my opinion but it is what it is. The only other explanation I could think of is that erasing the chip might erase security register 0? Unfortunately I only have one chip so I can't test that. Even if that were the case it would still be unhelpful. I dumped extra ID in a previous email thread, IIRC it just loops, no extra 7f bytes like there should be. In conclusion it seems to me as though the two chips behave identically, there's probably no way to know for certain though without asking the manufacturer. [1] http://www.bmsemi.com/upload/file/20180425/15246261557309416.pdf > ______________________________________________________ > Linux MTD discussion mailing list > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
Am 3. Juli 2021 17:58:57 MESZ schrieb George Brooke <figgyc@figgyc.uk>: >Hi Tudor, > >Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com writes: > >> On 6/28/21 8:48 AM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: >>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you >know the content is safe >>> >>> On 5/18/21 10:39 PM, David Bauer wrote: >>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you >know the content is safe >>>> >>>> Hi Michael, >>>> >>>> Sorry for the late reply, was not feeling well past week. >>>> >>>> On 5/10/21 1:22 PM, Michael Walle wrote: >>>>> Hi David, >>>>> >>>>> Am 2021-05-10 13:04, schrieb David Bauer: >>>>>> On 5/10/21 12:56 PM, Michael Walle wrote: >>>>>>> Am 2021-05-10 12:27, schrieb David Bauer: >>>>>>>> On 5/10/21 11:35 AM, Michael Walle wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am 2021-05-10 11:28, schrieb David Bauer: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/21 10:00 AM, Michael Walle wrote >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +static const struct flash_info bohong_parts[] = { >>>>>>>>>>>> + /* BoHong Microelectronics */ >>>>>>>>>>>> + { "bh25q128as", INFO(0x684018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't find "BoHong" in JEP106BC. 0x68 (without >continuation codes) >>>>>>>>>>> is "Convex Computer". So this is wrong. OTOH I'm not sure, >how many >>>>>>>>>>> SPI flashes "convex computer" have, if any ;) This company >was brought >>>>>>>>>>> by HP in the end. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In any case, this patch depends on how we handle >continuation codes or >>>>>>>>>>> if we can handle them at all. Or if this flash just lie >about its >>>>>>>>>>> manufacturer id and don't and CC. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> First of all, BoHong and Boya microelectronics seems to be >the same >>>>>>>>>> company, as their datasheets seem to copy each other. There's >not much >>>>>>>>>> information about either of both, so I'd say that's a fair >assumption. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regarding the continuation codes, Boya is listed in bank >nine, however >>>>>>>>>> in this case I should currently read an all 0x7f ID shouldn't >I? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd guess so, yes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The datasheet also only specifies 3 bytes as a return value >for >>>>>>>>>> register 0x9fh :( >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yeah. So, this flash falls into the same category "simply >hijacks >>>>>>>>> a manuf id" as all the other flashes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From a quick check, this is also be the case for GigaDevices >and XMC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My spontaneous idea would be to extend support for JEDEC IDs to >read >>>>>>>> the up to 9 banks of the vendor ID and fix up the existing >offenders. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you mean gigadevices and xmc? I'd presume they are also lacking >the >>>>>>> continuation bytes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Correct, same story with them. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To not break existing boards, we could either skip the >continuation >>>>>>>> bytes of the kernel ID definitions for all flash chips or flag >the >>>>>>>> already existing ones and only perform this on such flagged >chips. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Personally, I'd say that only performing this on existing chips >would >>>>>>>> be better, as new vendors with this violation scheme might >probably >>>>>>>> appear and cause conflicts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As we still lack auto detection for new chips with that, >configuring >>>>>>>> the flash chip used with the chip name via DT would allow to >set the >>>>>>>> exact chip used and also validate if the manufacturer / product >after >>>>>>>> the continuation bits matches the one read from the chip. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you'd ask me, unless there is a real world conflict, I'd just >go >>>>>>> ahead and add them as is. If there is a conflict we'd need to >find >>>>>>> a per device resolution for it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Okay, I'll resend a v2 with the removed copyright then. >>>>> >>>>> Could you also apply my SFDP patch [1] and send the dump (if there >>>>> is any)? Unfortunately, I can't think of a good way to do that >along >>>>> with the patch and if this in some way regarded as copyrighted >material. >>>>> So feel free to send it to me privately. I'm starting to build a >>>>> database. >>>> >>>> Bad news, I'm not able to get a SFDP with your patches, as the SFDP >extraction >>>> fails at the version check. >>>> >>>> Is there anything else I can try? >>>> >>> >>> So no SFDP data? >>> Have you tried to read more of ID bytes, maybe there's an extended >ID? Please >>> dump 15 bytes of ID. >> >> what's the difference between by25q128as and bh25q128as? I see they >share the >> same flash ID. >> > >I've got the by25q128as, so I compiled the SFDP and sysfs patch kernel >to read it out. > >figgyc@figgyc-pi:~ $ ls /sys/class/spi_master/spi0/spi0.0/spi-nor/ >jedec_id manufacturer partname >$ cat /sys/class/spi_master/spi0/spi0.0/spi-nor/jedec_id >684018 >$ cat /sys/class/spi_master/spi0/spi0.0/spi-nor/manufacturer >boya >$ cat /sys/class/spi_master/spi0/spi0.0/spi-nor/partname >by25q128as >(this is using my patch for the chip support) > >There was no sfdp file for me either, failed the version check like >David's chip (I added a dev_dbg to check). Then it seems it doesn't have SFDP. >One thing I noticed reading the datasheet[1] again was this line: >"Security Register 0 can be used to store the Flash Discoverable >Parameters, The feature is upon special order, please contact Boya >Microelectronics for details." >The same line is also present in the BoHong datasheet but it says >HuaHong instead of Boya. That makes me wonder if the meaning of >"Discoverable Parameters (SFDP) register" in the datasheet does not >actually mean that it has SFDP data programmed in by default, which >would be quite strange, but if true then that would be quite annoying >because then I don't think there are any differences between Boya and >BoHong. Very strange design decision in my opinion but it is what it >is. I'd say it is exactly this. There is no SFDP. only on "special request", I guess that means "we were too lazy and if there is a client big enough we'll do it". >The only other explanation I could think of is that erasing the chip >might erase security register 0? Unfortunately I only have one chip so >I can't test that. Even if that were the case it would still be >unhelpful. There should be a special command to erase security registers, aka OTP. Winbond does the same, just return the first security register content if you send a RDSFDP. Just that it's programmed by default and the data sheet doesn't mention security register 0 (and treat it as reserved). -michael >I dumped extra ID in a previous email thread, IIRC it just loops, no >extra 7f bytes like there should be. > >In conclusion it seems to me as though the two chips behave >identically, there's probably no way to know for certain though without >asking the manufacturer. > >[1] http://www.bmsemi.com/upload/file/20180425/15246261557309416.pdf > >> ______________________________________________________ >> Linux MTD discussion mailing list >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile index 653923896205..de0b2d3bcb1c 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ spi-nor-objs := core.o sfdp.o spi-nor-objs += atmel.o +spi-nor-objs += bohong.o spi-nor-objs += catalyst.o spi-nor-objs += eon.o spi-nor-objs += esmt.o diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/bohong.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/bohong.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..20aeceb1b2d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/bohong.c @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/* + * Copyright (C) 2005, Intec Automation Inc. + * Copyright (C) 2014, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. + */ + +#include <linux/mtd/spi-nor.h> + +#include "core.h" + +static const struct flash_info bohong_parts[] = { + /* BoHong Microelectronics */ + { "bh25q128as", INFO(0x684018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, + SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ) }, +}; + +const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_bohong = { + .name = "bohong", + .parts = bohong_parts, + .nparts = ARRAY_SIZE(bohong_parts), +}; diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c index 0522304f52fa..03a05bce6231 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c @@ -2199,6 +2199,7 @@ int spi_nor_sr2_bit7_quad_enable(struct spi_nor *nor) static const struct spi_nor_manufacturer *manufacturers[] = { &spi_nor_atmel, + &spi_nor_bohong, &spi_nor_catalyst, &spi_nor_eon, &spi_nor_esmt, diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h index 4a3f7f150b5d..b71323317235 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h @@ -409,6 +409,7 @@ struct spi_nor_manufacturer { /* Manufacturer drivers. */ extern const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_atmel; +extern const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_bohong; extern const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_catalyst; extern const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_eon; extern const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_esmt;
Add MTD support for the BoHong bh25q128as SPI NOR chip. The chip has 16MB of total capacity, divided into a total of 256 sectors, each 64KB sized. The chip also supports 4KB sectors. Additionally, it supports dual and quad read modes. Functionality was verified on an Tenbay WR1800K / MTK MT7621 board. Signed-off-by: David Bauer <mail@david-bauer.net> --- drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile | 1 + drivers/mtd/spi-nor/bohong.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 1 + drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h | 1 + 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/bohong.c