[RESEND PATCH v2 1/3] mtd: spi-nor: add support to non-uniform SFDP SPI NOR flash memories

Tudor Ambarus tudor.ambarus at microchip.com
Mon Sep 10 03:18:23 PDT 2018


Marek,

On 09/07/2018 11:31 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 09/07/2018 10:51 AM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>> Thanks Marek,
>>
>> On 09/03/2018 08:37 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On 08/27/2018 12:26 PM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> +/* JEDEC JESD216B Standard imposes erase sizes to be power of 2. */
>>>> +static inline u64
>>>> +spi_nor_div_by_erase_size(const struct spi_nor_erase_type *erase,
>>>> +			  u64 dividend, u32 *remainder)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	*remainder = (u32)dividend & erase->size_mask;
>>>
>>> Is the cast really needed ? btw I think there might be a macro doing
>>> just this, div_by_ or something in include/ .
>>
>> The cast is not needed, the AND sets to zero all but the low-order 32bits of
>> divided and then we have the implicit cast.
>>
>> Are you referring to do_div()? I expect the bitwise operations to be faster.
>> Bitwise operations are preferred in include/linux/mtd/mtd.h too:
> 
> I thought there was some macro to do this bitwise modulo operation
> already , so you don't have to implement it here. I don't mean do_div, no.
> 
>> static inline uint32_t mtd_div_by_eb(uint64_t sz, struct mtd_info *mtd)
>> {
>>         if (mtd->erasesize_shift)
>>                 return sz >> mtd->erasesize_shift;
>>         do_div(sz, mtd->erasesize);
>>         return sz;
>> }
>>
>>>
>>>> +	return dividend >> erase->size_shift;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct spi_nor_erase_type *
>>>> +spi_nor_find_best_erase_type(const struct spi_nor_erase_map *map,
>>>> +			     const struct spi_nor_erase_region *region,
>>>> +			     u64 addr, u32 len)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	const struct spi_nor_erase_type *erase;
>>>> +	u32 rem;
>>>> +	int i;
>>>> +	u8 erase_mask = region->offset & SNOR_ERASE_TYPE_MASK;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * Erase types are ordered by size, with the biggest erase type at
>>>> +	 * index 0.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	for (i = SNOR_ERASE_TYPE_MAX - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
>>>> +		/* Does the erase region support the tested erase type? */
>>>> +		if (!(erase_mask & BIT(i)))
>>>> +			continue;
>>>> +
>>>> +		erase = &map->erase_type[i];
>>>> +
>>>> +		/* Don't erase more than what the user has asked for. */
>>>> +		if (erase->size > len)
>>>> +			continue;
>>>> +
>>>> +		/* Alignment is not mandatory for overlaid regions */
>>>> +		if (region->offset & SNOR_OVERLAID_REGION)
>>>> +			return erase;
>>>> +
>>>> +		spi_nor_div_by_erase_size(erase, addr, &rem);
>>>> +		if (rem)
>>>> +			continue;
>>>> +		else
>>>> +			return erase;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	return NULL;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct spi_nor_erase_region *
>>>> +spi_nor_region_next(struct spi_nor_erase_region *region)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	if (spi_nor_region_is_last(region))
>>>> +		return NULL;
>>>> +	return ++region;
>>>
>>> region++ ...
>>
>> It's an array of regions, consecutive in address space, in which walking is done
>> incrementally. If the received region is not the last, I want to return the next
>> region, so ++region is correct.
> 
> return i++ is the same as return ++i;
> 
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> +static int spi_nor_cmp_erase_type(const void *a, const void *b)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	const struct spi_nor_erase_type *erase1 = a;
>>>> +	const struct spi_nor_erase_type *erase2 = b;
>>>> +
>>>> +	return erase1->size - erase2->size;
>>>
>>> What does this function do again ?
>>
>> It's a compare function, I compare by size the map's Erase Types. I pass a
>> pointer to this function in the sort() call. I sort in ascending order, by size,
>> all the map's Erase Types when parsing bfpt. I'm doing the sort at init to speed
>> up the finding of the best erase command at run-time.
>>
>> A better name for this function is spi_nor_map_cmp_erase_type(), we compare the
>> map's Erase Types by size.
> 
> More like a description would be most welcome, in the actual code. And I

I will describe all functions, together with arguments and return value.

> really dislike how you fiddle around with void pointers, can't that be
> fixed?

The void pointers are imposed by the sort() declaration, I'm not sure how we can
avoid them. See include/linux/sort.h:
void sort(void *base, size_t num, size_t size,
          int (*cmp)(const void *, const void *),
          void (*swap)(void *, void *, int));

>
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void spi_nor_regions_sort_erase_types(struct spi_nor_erase_map *map)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct spi_nor_erase_region *region = map->regions;
>>>> +	struct spi_nor_erase_type *erase_type = map->erase_type;
>>>> +	int i;
>>>> +	u8 region_erase_mask, ordered_erase_mask;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * Sort each region's Erase Types in ascending order with the smallest
>>>> +	 * Erase Type size starting at BIT(0).
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	while (region) {
>>>> +		region_erase_mask = region->offset & SNOR_ERASE_TYPE_MASK;
>>>> +
>>>> +		/*
>>>> +		 * The region's erase mask indicates which erase types are
>>>> +		 * supported from the erase types defined in the map.
>>>> +		 */
>>>> +		ordered_erase_mask = 0;
>>>> +		for (i = 0; i < SNOR_ERASE_TYPE_MAX; i++)
>>>> +			if (erase_type[i].size &&
>>>> +			    region_erase_mask & BIT(erase_type[i].idx))
>>>> +				ordered_erase_mask |= BIT(i);
>>>> +
>>>> +		/* Overwrite erase mask. */
>>>> +		region->offset = (region->offset & ~SNOR_ERASE_TYPE_MASK) |
>>>> +				 ordered_erase_mask;
>>>> +
>>>> +		region = spi_nor_region_next(region);
>>>> +	}
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static inline void
>>>
>>> Drop the inline
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>>
>>>> +spi_nor_init_uniform_erase_map(struct spi_nor_erase_map *map,
>>>> +			       u8 erase_mask, u64 flash_size)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	map->uniform_region.offset = SNOR_ERASE_FLAGS_OFFSET(erase_mask, 1, 0,
>>>> +							     0);
>>>> +	map->uniform_region.size = flash_size;
>>>> +	map->regions = &map->uniform_region;
>>>> +	map->uniform_erase_type = erase_mask;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> +#define spi_nor_region_is_last(region)  (region->offset & SNOR_LAST_REGION)
>>>> +
>>>> +static inline u64 spi_nor_region_end(const struct spi_nor_erase_region *region)
>>>
>>> Get rid of the inlines, really.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>>
>>>> +{
>>>> +	return (region->offset & ~SNOR_ERASE_FLAGS_MASK) + region->size;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static inline bool spi_nor_has_uniform_erase(const struct spi_nor *nor)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	return !!nor->erase_map.uniform_erase_type;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>  static inline void spi_nor_set_flash_node(struct spi_nor *nor,
>>>>  					  struct device_node *np)
>>>>  {
>>>>
>>>
>>> General question, what happens if the multi-block erase fails mid-way ,
>>> is that handled or reported somehow to the user ?
>>
>> I already implemented your suggestion. I build a list of erase commands to be
>> executed once I validate that the erase can be performed.
> 
> You can send them, but what happens if it fails mid-way ? Is the user
> somehow notified that part of his flash is empty and part is not ?

The user will see just the error code, it is not notified which part of the
flash is erased and which not, just like in the uniform erase case. I'm not sure
what would be the advantage of reporting a partial erase. If the erase fails
mid-way then it's not reliable, no?

Since your suggestion also applies for the uniform erase case, would you agree
to let it apart and treat it in a different patch after the non-uniform erase
gets approved?

Thanks,
ta



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list