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

[Jagan Teki]

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.

thanks!
-- 
Jagan.