[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YqwLaIvjdRBsNRuU@lahna>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:04:40 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Oleksandr Ocheretnyi -X (oocheret - GLOBALLOGIC INC at Cisco)"
<oocheret@...co.com>
Cc: "tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com" <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>,
"miquel.raynal@...tlin.com" <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
"p.yadav@...com" <p.yadav@...com>,
"michael@...le.cc" <michael@...le.cc>,
"richard@....at" <richard@....at>,
"vigneshr@...com" <vigneshr@...com>,
"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
"mauro.lima@...ypsium.com" <mauro.lima@...ypsium.com>,
"lee.jones@...aro.org" <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"xe-linux-external(mailer list)" <xe-linux-external@...co.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: spi-nor: handle unsupported FSR opcodes properly
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 08:26:33PM +0000, Oleksandr Ocheretnyi -X (oocheret - GLOBALLOGIC INC at Cisco) wrote:
> Hi Mika,
>
> > However I remember you caught situation where
> micron_st_nor_read_fsr()
> > returns -EOPNOTSUPP
> > (intel_spi_exec_mem_op callback returns -EOPNOTSUPP), according to
> your
> > patch
> >
> [3]https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/20220506105158.43613-1-mika.wester
> > berg@...ux.intel.com/ I've noted in description body. So I think I
> have
> > to cover both errorcodes, haven't I?
> I was thinking that you change the both functions in Intel SPI to
> return
>
> -ENOTSUPP, not just one.
>
> you know 'drivers/mtd/spi-nor' sources use -EOPNOTSUPP errorcode only,
> however
>
> 'drivers/spi' modules (where intel driver is located as well as
> spi-mem.c) use both errorcodes many times
>
> (-EOPNOTSUPP and -ENOTSUPP).
Oh, indeed. I remembered that SPI-NOR core was using ENOTSUP but it was
SPI-MEM instead.
> So maybe it is better to use -EOPNOTSUPP for intel driver file (what
> uses -EOPNOTSUPP everywhere) and
>
> update the spi-mem.c with -EOPNOTSUPP as return value, how do you
> think?
Yes, I think this is the correct approach. You need to be careful though
to make sure the callers of SPI-MEM functions do not get unexpected
values.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists