[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <579eab10-594c-d6b2-0ddb-ea6ab8e02856@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 17:22:34 +0100
From: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
To: Tokunori Ikegami <ikegami.t@...il.com>,
Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Joakim.Tjernlund@...inera.com,
miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, vigneshr@...com, richard@....at,
"regressions@...ts.linux.dev" <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Cc: Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, marek.vasut@...il.com,
cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: write regression since v4.17-rc1
Hello Tokunori-san,
On 13.02.22 17:47, Tokunori Ikegami wrote:
> Hi Ahmad-san,
>
> Thanks for your confirmations. Sorry for late to reply.
No worries. I appreciate you taking the time.
> Could you please try the patch attached to disable the chip_good() change as before?
> I think this should work for S29GL964N since the chip_ready() is used and works as mentioned.
yes, this resolves my issue:
Tested-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
>>>> Doesn't seem to be a buffered write issue here though as the writes
>>>> did work fine before dfeae1073583. Any other ideas?
>>> At first I thought the issue is possible to be resolved by using the word write instead of the buffered writes.
>>> Now I am thinking to disable the changes dfeae1073583 partially with any condition if possible.
>> What seems to work for me is checking if chip_good or chip_ready
>> and map_word is equal to 0xFF. I can't justify why this is ok though.
>> (Worst case bus is floating at this point of time and Hi-Z is read
>> as 0xff on CPU data lines...)
>
> Sorry I am not sure about this.
> I thought the chip_ready() itself is correct as implemented as the data sheet in the past.
> But it did not work correctly so changed to use chip_good() instead as it is also correct.
What exactly in the datasheet makes you believe chip_good is not appropriate?
Cheers,
Ahmad
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists