[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 7/7] sf: Add FSR support to spi_flash_cmd_wait_ready

[Marek Vasut]

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 10:17:59 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> On 19 August 2015 at 13:09, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 09:35:32 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> >> On 19 August 2015 at 04:28, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:36:40 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> >> >> On 19 August 2015 at 03:33, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> >> >> > On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 12:32:54 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> >> >> >> This patch adds flag status register reading support to
> >> >> >> spi_flash_cmd_wait_ready.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jteki at openedev.com>
> >> >> >> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> >> >> >> Cc: Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>
> >> >> >> Cc: Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com>
> >> >> >> Cc: Siva Durga Prasad Paladugu <sivadur at xilinx.com>
> >> >> >> Cc: Stefan Roese <sr at denx.de>
> >> >> >> Cc: Tom Warren <twarren at nvidia.com>
> >> >> >> Cc: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
> >> >> >> Cc: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> >> >> >> Cc: Hou Zhiqiang <B48286 at freescale.com>
> >> >> >> Tested-by: Jagan Teki <jteki at openedev.com>
> >> >> >> ---
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >>  drivers/mtd/spi/sf_internal.h |  1 +
> >> >> >>  drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c      | 66
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >> >> >> drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> |  4 +--
> >> >> >>  
> >> >> >>  include/spi_flash.h           |  2 --
> >> >> >>  4 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_internal.h
> >> >> >> b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_internal.h index e97c716..4ecfd0c 100644
> >> >> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_internal.h
> >> >> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_internal.h
> >> >> >> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ enum {
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >>  enum spi_nor_option_flags {
> >> >> >>  
> >> >> >>       SNOR_F_SST_WR           = (1 << 0),
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> +     SNOR_F_USE_FSR          = (1 << 1),
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >>  };
> >> >> >>  
> >> >> >>  #define SPI_FLASH_3B_ADDR_LEN                3
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c
> >> >> >> index 7d7c264..a5487ad 100644
> >> >> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c
> >> >> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c
> >> >> >> @@ -40,6 +40,21 @@ int spi_flash_cmd_read_status(struct spi_flash
> >> >> >> *flash, u8 *rs) return 0;
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >>  }
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> +static int read_fsr(struct spi_flash *flash, u8 *fsr)
> >> >> >> +{
> >> >> >> +     int ret;
> >> >> >> +     u8 cmd;
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +     cmd = CMD_FLAG_STATUS;
> >> >> >> +     ret = spi_flash_read_common(flash, &cmd, 1, fsr, 1);
> >> >> >> +     if (ret < 0) {
> >> >> >> +             debug("SF: fail to read flag status register\n");
> >> >> >> +             return ret;
> >> >> >> +     }
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +     return 0;
> >> >> >> +}
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >>  int spi_flash_cmd_write_status(struct spi_flash *flash, u8 ws)
> >> >> >>  {
> >> >> >>  
> >> >> >>       u8 cmd;
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> @@ -138,24 +153,63 @@ static void spi_flash_dual_flash(struct
> >> >> >> spi_flash *flash, u32 *addr) }
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >>  #endif
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> +static inline int spi_flash_sr_ready(struct spi_flash *flash)
> >> >> >> +{
> >> >> >> +     u8 sr;
> >> >> >> +     int ret;
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +     ret = spi_flash_cmd_read_status(flash, &sr);
> >> >> >> +     if (ret < 0)
> >> >> >> +             return ret;
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +     if (sr < 0)
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Have you ever seen u8 value that's < 0 ? :-)
> >> >> 
> >> >> Yes, over looked, It's been fixed on next patches as well.
> >> > 
> >> > Please don't apply broken code, fix this and repost.
> >> 
> >> I don't know what your talking about, there is patch already submitted
> >> with this fix and even you're CCed [1]
> >> 
> >> [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/508166/
> > 
> > I am talking about not applying patches which are known to be defective.
> > If you plan to apply this particular patch, make sure to fix it, repost
> > it and then apply this. Do NOT apply a patch which is broken only to
> > apply another patch which repairs the breakage, that's just nonsense.
> 
> Sorry, we are not here to apply broken patches, that you must
> understand clearly.

I'm stopping this discussion here, sorry.

> And we haven't re-post the series yet, if you have any concerns just wait
> for next series and comment. Any applied patches before I have re-posted
> to ML then only applied.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

> thanks!