[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 16/16] spi: Add SPI NOR protection mechanism

[Jagan Teki]

Hi Fabio,

On 30 October 2015 at 22:21, Fabio Estevam <festevam at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jagan,
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Jagan Teki <jteki at openedev.com> wrote:
>
>>> +static int do_spi_protect(int argc, char * const argv[])
>>> +{
>>> +       int ret = 0;
>>> +       loff_t start, len;
>>> +       bool prot = false;
>>> +
>>> +       if (argc != 4)
>>> +               return -1;
>>> +
>>> +       if (!str2off(argv[2], &start)) {
>>> +               puts("start sector is not a valid number\n");
>>> +               return 1;
>>> +       }
>>> +
>>> +       if (!str2off(argv[3], &len)) {
>>> +               puts("len is not a valid number\n");
>>> +               return 1;
>>> +       }
>>> +
>>> +       if (strcmp(argv[1], "lock") == 0)
>>> +               prot = true;
>>> +       else if (strcmp(argv[1], "unlock") == 0)
>>> +               prot = false;
>>> +       else
>>
>> Don't we have is_locked command from user? may be we can all this one as well.
>
> Sorry, I did not understand the suggestion here.
>
> Looks like you are happy with patches 1 to 15 of this series.
>
> Could you please apply patches 1 to 15 and then I rework only this last one?

I will pick the entire series once, since 15/16 and 16/16 are same feature set.

My questions with 16/16 is

1. We need to check the idcode as well because if we compile other
flash vendor with micron, non
micron flash got initialized with these lock ops' and also assign
stm_* calls if the idcode is micro.

> +#if defined(CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_STMICRO)
> +       flash->lock = spi_flash_cmd_lock_ops;
> +       flash->unlock = spi_flash_cmd_unlock_ops;
> +       flash->is_locked = spi_flash_cmd_is_locked_ops;
> +#endif

2. Do the 1 for dm as well, probably in probe.

3. What about adding  'sf protect is_locked' since we have code already?

thanks!
-- 
Jagan | openedev.