[PATCH 1/9] mtd: spi-nor: Remove recently added nor->addr_width == 3 test

[Tudor Ambarus]

On 10/30/24 10:33 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> Hi Marek,
> 
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 1:48 AM Marek Vasut
> <marek.vasut+renesas at mailbox.org> wrote:
>>
>> Remove undocumented nor->addr_width == 3 test. This was added in commit
>> 5d40b3d384dc ("mtd: spi-nor: Add parallel and stacked memories support")
>> without any explanation in the commit message. Remove it.
>>
>> This also has a bad side-effect which breaks READ operation of every SPI NOR
>> which does not use addr_width == 3, e.g. s25fs512s does not work at all. This
>> is because if addr_width != 3, rem_bank_len is always 0, and if rem_bank_len
>> is 0, then read_len is 0 and if read_len is 0, then the spi_nor_read() returns
>> -EIO.
>>
>> Basic reproducer is as follows:
>> "
>> => sf probe ; sf read 0x50000000 0 0x10000
>> SF: Detected s25fs512s with page size 256 Bytes, erase size 256 KiB, total 64 MiB
>> device 0 offset 0x0, size 0x10000
>> SF: 65536 bytes @ 0x0 Read: ERROR -5
>> "
>>
>> Fixes: 5d40b3d384dc ("mtd: spi-nor: Add parallel and stacked memories support")
>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas at mailbox.org>
>> ---
>> Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara at arm.com>
>> Cc: Ashok Reddy Soma <ashok.reddy.soma at amd.com>
>> Cc: Jagan Teki <jagan at amarulasolutions.com>
>> Cc: Michael Walle <mwalle at kernel.org>
>> Cc: Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com>
>> Cc: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard at foss.st.com>
>> Cc: Patrick Delaunay <patrick.delaunay at foss.st.com>
>> Cc: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav at ti.com>
>> Cc: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz at cherry.de>
>> Cc: Sean Anderson <seanga2 at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>> Cc: Takahiro Kuwano <Takahiro.Kuwano at infineon.com>
>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
>> Cc: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus at linaro.org>
>> Cc: Venkatesh Yadav Abbarapu <venkatesh.abbarapu at amd.com>
>> Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de
>> Cc: uboot-stm32 at st-md-mailman.stormreply.com
>> ---
> 
> Is this patch-set next version for 'previous' reverted series?
> 

my 2c: I think I lean towards reverting the stacked/parallel support.
The only one that benefits of is AMD, while affecting the core code
quality. It also slows down further contributions and I assume it
hardens maintainer's job.

Even if I (we?) haven't made my mind on how to best implement this, it's
clear that it shall be above SPI NOR without affecting current devices.

Not sure if it's fine to revert everything, haven't followed u-boot
lately, your choice to make.

Cheers,
ta