linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: fix 4-byte opcode support for w25q256

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e4826369-f239-4b67-1da8-f7d9c8357abe@8devices.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:08:30 +0300
From:   Mantas <mantas@...vices.com>
To:     Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com, gch981213@...il.com,
        robimarko@...il.com
Cc:     linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, miquel.raynal@...tlin.com,
        richard@....at, vigneshr@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: fix 4-byte opcode support for w25q256

On 2020-04-20 13:53, Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 4:48:30 PM EEST Mantas Pucka wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
>> content is safe
>>
>> There are 2 different chips (w25q256fv and w25q256jv) that share
>> the same JEDEC ID. Only w25q256jv fully supports 4-byte opcodes.
>> Use SFDP header version to differentiate between them.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mantas Pucka <mantas@...vices.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c    |  4 ----
>>   drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h    |  6 ++++++
>>   drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>   3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
>> index f6038d3..27838f6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.c
>> @@ -21,10 +21,6 @@
>>   #define SFDP_4BAIT_ID          0xff84  /* 4-byte Address Instruction Table
>> */
>>
>>   #define SFDP_SIGNATURE         0x50444653U
>> -#define SFDP_JESD216_MAJOR     1
>> -#define SFDP_JESD216_MINOR     0
>> -#define SFDP_JESD216A_MINOR    5
>> -#define SFDP_JESD216B_MINOR    6
>>
>>   struct sfdp_header {
>>          u32             signature; /* Ox50444653U <=> "SFDP" */
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
>> index e0a8ded..b84abd0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/sfdp.h
>> @@ -7,6 +7,12 @@
>>   #ifndef __LINUX_MTD_SFDP_H
>>   #define __LINUX_MTD_SFDP_H
>>
>> +/* SFDP revisions */
>> +#define SFDP_JESD216_MAJOR     1
>> +#define SFDP_JESD216_MINOR     0
>> +#define SFDP_JESD216A_MINOR    5
>> +#define SFDP_JESD216B_MINOR    6
>> +
>>   /* Basic Flash Parameter Table */
>>
>>   /*
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
>> index 17deaba..50b2478 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/winbond.c
>> @@ -8,6 +8,32 @@
>>
>>   #include "core.h"
>>
>> +static int
>> +w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups(struct spi_nor *nor,
>> +                        const struct sfdp_parameter_header *bfpt_header,
>> +                        const struct sfdp_bfpt *bfpt,
>> +                        struct spi_nor_flash_parameter *params)
>> +{
>> +       /*
>> +        * W25Q256JV supports 4B opcodes but W25Q256FV does not.
>> +        * Unfortunately, Winbond has re-used the same JEDEC ID for both
>> +        * variants which prevents us from defining a new entry in the parts
>> +        * table.
>> +        * To differentiate between W25Q256JV and W25Q256FV check SFDP
>> header +        * version: only JV has JESD216A compliant structure
>> (version 5) +        */
>> +
>> +       if (bfpt_header->major == SFDP_JESD216_MAJOR &&
>> +           bfpt_header->minor == SFDP_JESD216A_MINOR)
> 
> Not sure if this is generic enough. Are you sure that the JV version will
> never have an update for the sfdp tables?
> 

No, I'm not sure. I also don't know about other changes that may come 
with a version update: will it have 4B opcode table? will it be 
different version again (say KV) with it's own quirks? Fix only what 
needs fixing was the idea. But I guess chances of new chip with no 4B 
opcodes and new SFDP table are pretty slim, so I'm OK with having >= in v2.

>> +               nor->flags |= SNOR_F_4B_OPCODES;
>> +
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct spi_nor_fixups w25q256_fixups = {
>> +       .post_bfpt = w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups,
>> +};
>> +
> 
> If the post_bfpt hook is called, you already have a valid bfpt table. If the
> differentiator between the JV and FV versions is that only the JV defines the
> SFDP tables, then your w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups() can look as:
> 
> static int w25q256_post_bfpt_fixups()
> {
> 	nor->flags |= SNOR_F_4B_OPCODES;
> 	return 0;
> }

FV chip that I have, do actually have SFDP tables (with 
minor_version==0). I've saw Chuanhong reporting that some FV chips don't 
have SFDP, but certainly this is not the case for all of them.


Best regards,
Mantas