[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] dm: sf: Make SST flash write op work again

[Bin Meng]

Hi Jagan,

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 April 2015 at 14:12, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jagan,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Bin,
>>>
>>> On 23 April 2015 at 14:30, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> With SPI flash moving to driver model, commit fbb0991 "dm: Convert
>>>> spi_flash_probe() and 'sf probe' to use driver model" ignored the
>>>> SST flash-specific write op (byte program & word program), which
>>>> actually broke the SST flash from wroking.
>>>>
>>>> This commit makes SST flash work again under driver model, by adding
>>>> a new SST flash-specific driver to handle the different write op
>>>> from the standard one.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
>>>> index d19138d..47438d2 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
>>>> @@ -511,4 +511,35 @@ U_BOOT_DRIVER(spi_flash_std) = {
>>>>         .ops            = &spi_flash_std_ops,
>>>>  };
>>>>
>>>> +int spi_flash_sst_write(struct udevice *dev, u32 offset, size_t len,
>>>> +                       const void *buf)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct spi_flash *flash = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev);
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (flash->spi->op_mode_tx & SPI_OPM_TX_BP)
>>>> +               return sst_write_bp(flash, offset, len, buf);
>>>> +       else
>>>> +               return sst_write_wp(flash, offset, len, buf);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct dm_spi_flash_ops spi_flash_sst_ops = {
>>>> +       .read = spi_flash_std_read,
>>>> +       .write = spi_flash_sst_write,
>>>> +       .erase = spi_flash_std_erase,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct udevice_id spi_flash_sst_ids[] = {
>>>> +       { .compatible = "spi-flash-sst" },
>>>> +       { }
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +U_BOOT_DRIVER(spi_flash_sst) = {
>>>> +       .name           = "spi_flash_sst",
>>>> +       .id             = UCLASS_SPI_FLASH,
>>>> +       .of_match       = spi_flash_sst_ids,
>>>> +       .probe          = spi_flash_std_probe,
>>>> +       .priv_auto_alloc_size = sizeof(struct spi_flash),
>>>> +       .ops            = &spi_flash_sst_ops,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>>  #endif /* CONFIG_DM_SPI_FLASH */
>>>> --
>>>> 1.8.2.1
>>>
>>> I'm just curiosity to see different approach of being code duplicate
>>> with just for sst write call.
>>>
>>> What about this-
>>> int spi_flash_std_write(struct udevice *dev, u32 offset, size_t len,
>>>                         const void *buf)
>>> {
>>>         struct spi_flash *flash = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev);
>>>
>>> if defined(CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_SST)
>>>         if (flash->flags & SST_WR) {
>>>                 if (flash->spi->op_mode_tx & SPI_OPM_TX_BP)
>>>                         return sst_write_bp(flash, offset, len, buf);
>>>                 else
>>>                         return sst_write_wp(flash, offset, len, buf);
>>>          }
>>> #endif
>>>
>>>         return spi_flash_cmd_write_ops(flash, offset, len, buf);
>>> }
>>>
>>> Of course this requires extra flags member in spi_flash, any other thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> Yep, this way works too. Let me know which way you prefer and I can respin a v2.
>
> I preferred second.
>

OK, will respin a v2 soon. Thanks,

Regards,
Bin