[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 0/8] sf: improve support of (Q)SPI flash memories

[Bin Meng]

Hi Jagan,

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Yang, Wenyou <Wenyou.Yang at microchip.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017/8/30 11:43, Bin Meng wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Yang, Wenyou
>>>> <Wenyou.Yang at microchip.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2017/8/26 14:34, Jagan Teki wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Wenyou Yang
>>>>>> <wenyou.yang at microchip.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This series of patches are based and have been tested on the 'master'
>>>>>>> branch of the u-boot.git tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tests were passed with a sama5d2 xplained board which embeds both SPI
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> QSPI controllers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following tests have been passed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - QSPI0 + Macronix MX25L25673G:
>>>>>>>     + probe: OK
>>>>>>>     + Fast Read 1-1-4 at offset 0x10000 (u-boot env): OK
>>>>>>>     + Page Program 1-1-4 at offset 0x10000: OK
>>>>>>>       The Macronix datasheet tells that only Page Program 1-4-4 is
>>>>>>>       supported, not Page Program 1-1-4, however it worked, I don't
>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>       why...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - QSPI0 + Microchip SST26
>>>>>>>     + probe: OK
>>>>>>>     + Fast Read 1-1-4 at offset 0x10000 (u-boot env): OK
>>>>>>>     + Page Program 1-1-1 at offset 0x10000: OK
>>>>>>>       SST26 memories support Page Program 1-4-4 but with the op code of
>>>>>>>       Page Program 1-1-4, which is not standard so I don't use it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - QSPI0 + Adesto AT25DF321A
>>>>>>>     + probe: OK
>>>>>>>     + Fast Read 1-1-1 at offset 0x10000 (u-boot env): OK
>>>>>>>     + Page Program 1-1-1 at offset 0x10000: OK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - SPI0 + Adesto AT25DF321A
>>>>>>>     + probe: OK
>>>>>>>     + Fast Read 1-1-1 at offset 0x6000 (u-boot env): OK
>>>>>>>     + Page Program 1-1-1 at offest 0x6000: OK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - SPI1 + Atmel AT45
>>>>>>>     + probe: OK
>>>>>>>     + Read at offset 0 and other than 0: OK
>>>>>>>     + Write at offset 0 and other than 0: OK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> During my tests, I used:
>>>>>>>     - setenv/saveenv, reboot, printenv
>>>>>>>     or
>>>>>>>     - sf probe, sf read, sf write, sf erase and sf update.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes in v3:
>>>>>>>    - Add the include <spi.h> to fix build error for corvus_defconfig.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>>>>    - Rebase on the latest u-boot/master(2710d54f5).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cyrille Pitchen (8):
>>>>>>>     spi: add support of SPI flash commands
>>>>>>>     sf: describe all SPI flash commands with 'struct spi_flash_command'
>>>>>>>     sf: select the relevant SPI flash protocol for read and write
>>>>>>> commands
>>>>>>>     sf: differentiate Page Program 1-1-4 and 1-4-4
>>>>>>>     sf: add 'addr_len' member to 'struct spi_flash'
>>>>>>>     sf: add new option to support SPI flash above 16MiB
>>>>>>>     sf: add support to Microchip SST26 QSPI memories
>>>>>>>     sf: add driver for Atmel QSPI controller
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comments:
>>>>>> How about writing struct spi_flash_command in spi_flash area
>>>>>> (include/spi_flash.h)? and then write atmel_qspi with
>>>>>> UCLASS_SPI_FLASH?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Testing:
>>>>>> Basic testing works fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Issues:
>>>>>> - Build issue: with zynq_microzed_defconfig
>>>>>> drivers/mtd/spi/spi_flash.c: In function ‘spi_flash_scan’:
>>>>>> drivers/mtd/spi/spi_flash.c:1049:7: warning: variable ‘above_16MB’ set
>>>>>> but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>>>>>>     bool above_16MB;
>>>>>>          ^~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>     CC      spl/lib/membuff.o
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - issue with spi_flash_cmd_read_ops 4BAIS
>>>>>> Need to calculate bank length only if BAR is in use. Otherwise,
>>>>>> consider the given len as read_len.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will send separate patch for this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Will You send a separate patch? or I include it in this patch set?
>>>>
>>>> This should not be a separate patch. Since every patch needs to pass
>>>> buildman testing.
>>>
>>> But it is not introduced by this patch set. So should be a separate patch to
>>> fix.
>>
>> Do you mean the build warnings exist in current u-boot/master?
>>
>> If so, Jagan can you please explain why you mention this? This is
>> nothing related to this patch review.
>
> Please read my previous comments, I was clearly explain the issue and
> diff. Issue came up this series with 4BAIS on spi_flash_cmd_read_ops
>

So your words and Wenyou are contradictory. Wenyou claimed the
warnings do not come from his patchset while you said yes. Anyway will
leave you guys to resolve.

My point is: if the warnings exist in current mainline, this should be
fixed as a unrelated patch. If the warnings come from this series,
this should be fixed in the particular patch that introduces the
warnings!

Regards,
Bin