Intel protection register read

David Woodhouse dwmw2 at
Thu Nov 8 10:02:18 EST 2001

cdavies at said:
>  Hmm, this is a problem. Am I correct in thinking that the code only
> reads the cfi tables from the first device and assumes that any
> additional devices are of the same type? (That's what it looks like to
> me) If so there is no way to read the protection register data from
> subsequent devices. 

You can do whatever you like in ->read_prot_reg(), so there's nothing that 
prevents you from doing this.

>  I reckon the best way to handle the multiple/interleaved chip
> configuration would be to concatenate all the protection registers
> together into one block. All the other interfaces I can think of would
> require a chip number to be passed in, which doesn't seem that nice to
> me. Does that sound reasonable?

Seems like a sane approach to me. We possibly need to couple it with a way
to query the size of protection register data available. 

> > Also, isn't it possible to _write_ to the user areas of the chips?
> Yes it is, but I haven't implemented that because I don't need it. If
> adding writes is a condition for getting read functionality into cvs
> then I can do that too. 

Implementing it isn't absolutely necessary, although it would be nice. We 
do have to make sure that the framework is sane, and whoever _does_ finally 
implement writes isn't going to have to change stuff around for it, though.


More information about the linux-mtd mailing list