[PATCH v5 19/23] FWU: synquacer: Add FWU Multi bank update support for DeveloperBox

[Jassi Brar]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 03:23, Michal Simek <monstr at monstr.eu> wrote:
> On 6/9/22 14:30, Sughosh Ganu wrote:
> > From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu at linaro.org>
> >
....

> > +}
> > +
> > +static int plat_sf_get_flash(struct spi_flash **flash)
> > +{
> > +     int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +     if (!plat_spi_flash)
> > +             ret = __plat_sf_get_flash();
> > +
> > +     *flash = plat_spi_flash;
> > +
> > +     return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int sf_load_data(u32 offs, u32 size, void **data)
> > +{
> > +     struct spi_flash *flash;
> > +     int ret;
> > +
> > +     ret = plat_sf_get_flash(&flash);
> > +     if (ret < 0)
> > +             return ret;
> > +
> > +     *data = memalign(ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN, size);
> > +     if (!*data)
> > +             return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +     ret = spi_flash_read(flash, offs, size, *data);
> > +     if (ret < 0) {
> > +             free(*data);
> > +             *data = NULL;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int sf_save_data(u32 offs, u32 size, void *data)
> > +{
> > +     struct spi_flash *flash;
> > +     u32 sect_size, nsect;
> > +     void *buf;
> > +     int ret;
> > +
> > +     ret = plat_sf_get_flash(&flash);
> > +     if (ret < 0)
> > +             return ret;
> > +
> > +     sect_size = flash->mtd.erasesize;
> > +     nsect = DIV_ROUND_UP(size, sect_size);
> > +     ret = spi_flash_erase(flash, offs, nsect * sect_size);
>
> What it is interesting here that framework itself is using mtd infrastructure
> but this platform driver is calling spi functions directly.
> It looks a little bit nonstandard way. What's the reason for it?
>
Yup, this whole sf shebang is unnecessary, and removed for next revision.

> > +
> > +#define PLAT_METADATA_OFFSET 0x510000
> > +#define PLAT_METADATA_SIZE   (sizeof(struct devbox_metadata))
> > +
> > +struct __packed devbox_metadata {
> > +     u32 boot_index;
> > +     u32 boot_count;
>
> There is the whole bootcount infrastructure for this. I think it would be much
> better to use that framework instead of creating parallel one.
>
Yes, this goes too.

Thanks.