Date:   Tue, 6 Oct 2020 23:19:49 +0000
From:   Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
To:     Bert Vermeulen <bert@...t.com>
Cc:     Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@...com>,
        Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        linux-mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: Fix 3-or-4 address byte mode logic

On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 at 22:23, Bert Vermeulen <bert@...t.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/1/20 8:34 AM, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> > So using an address width of 4 here is not necessarily the right thing
> > to do. This change would break SMPT parsing for all flashes that use
> > 3-byte addressing by default because SMPT parsing can involve register
> > reads/writes. One such device is the Cypress S28HS flash. In fact, this
> > was what prompted me to write the patch [0].
> >
> > Before that patch, how did MX25L25635F decide to use 4-byte addressing?
>
> The SoCs I'm dealing with have an SPI_ADDR_SEL pin, indicating whether it
> should be in 3 or 4-byte mode. The vendor's hacked-up U-Boot sets the mode
> accordingly, as does their BSP. It seems to me like a misfeature, and I want
> to just ignore it and do reasonable JEDEC things, but I have the problem
> that the flash chip can be in 4-byte mode by the time it gets to my spi-nor
> driver.
>
> > Coming out of BFPT parsing addr_width would still be 0. My guess is that
> > it would go into spi_nor_set_addr_width() with addr_width still 0 and
> > then the check for (nor->mtd.size > 0x1000000) would set it to 4. Do I
> > guess correctly?
>
> No, it comes out of that with addr_width=3 because the chip publishes 3_OR_4
> and hence gets 3, even if that's nonsensical for a 32MB chip to publish.
>
> Certainly that's the problem, I just want to solve it in a more general case
> than just a fixup for this chip.
>
> > In that case maybe we can do a better job of deciding what gets priority
> > in the if-else chain. For example, giving addr_width from nor->info
> > precedence over the one configured by SFDP can solve this problem. Then
> > all you have to do is set the addr_width in the info struct, which is
> > certainly easier than adding a fixup hook. There may be a more elegant
> > solution to this but I haven't given it much thought.

Thanks for starting this conversation Bert. I had intended on
mentioning this broke our systems but didn't get to it. It broke a few
different Aspeed platforms where the flashes are >= 32MB.

We are running with a revert of the 3_OR_4 patch in OpenBMC kernels:

 https://github.com/openbmc/linux/commit/ee41b2b489259f01585e49327377f62b76a24748

>
> Since Tudor doesn't want the order of sfdp->info changed, how about
> something like this instead?
>
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> @@ -3028,13 +3028,15 @@ static int spi_nor_set_addr_width(struct spi_nor *nor)
>          /* already configured from SFDP */
>      } else if (nor->info->addr_width) {
>          nor->addr_width = nor->info->addr_width;
> -   } else if (nor->mtd.size > 0x1000000) {
> -       /* enable 4-byte addressing if the device exceeds 16MiB */
> -       nor->addr_width = 4;
>      } else {
>          nor->addr_width = 3;
>      }
>
> +   if (nor->addr_width == 3 && nor->mtd.size > 0x1000000) {
> +       /* enable 4-byte addressing if the device exceeds 16MiB */
> +       nor->addr_width = 4;
> +   }
> +
>
> Still fixes the general case, but I'm not sure what the SMPT parsing problem
> is -- would this still trigger it?

I tested this change you proposed and it fixed the issue for me.

Cheers,

Joel

>
>
> --
> Bert Vermeulen
> bert@...t.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists