[PATCH] drivers: mtd: m25p80: Add quad read support.

[Sourav Poddar]

On Tuesday 29 October 2013 10:38 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Sourav Poddar,
>
>> On Tuesday 29 October 2013 08:57 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> Dear Sourav Poddar,
>>>
>>>> Dear Marek Vasut,
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 29 October 2013 07:31 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>> Dear Sourav Poddar,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday 27 October 2013 10:15 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Sourav Poddar,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +static int macronix_quad_enable(struct m25p *flash)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> +	int ret, val;
>>>>>>>> +	u8 cmd[2];
>>>>>>>> +	cmd[0] = OPCODE_WRSR;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +	val = read_sr(flash);
>>>>>>>> +	cmd[1] = val | SR_QUAD_EN_MX;
>>>>>>>> +	write_enable(flash);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +	spi_write(flash->spi,&cmd, 2);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +	if (wait_till_ready(flash))
>>>>>>>> +		return 1;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +	ret = read_sr(flash);
>>>>>>> Maybe read_sr() and read_cr() shall be fixed to return retval only
>>>>>>> and the val shall be passed to them as an argument pointer? Aka. ret
>>>>>>> = read_sr(flash,&val);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That way, this dangerous construct below could become:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (!(val&     SR_....)) {
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 	dev_err();
>>>>>>> 	ret = -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>> I was trying to work on it and realise, we dont need to pass val
>>>>>> directly. We can continue returning the val and can still cleanup the
>>>>>> below code as u suggetsed above.
>>>>>> if (!(ret&    SR_....)) {
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         dev_err();
>>>>>>         ret = -EINVAL;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> }
>>>>> Uh oh, no. This doesn't seem right. I'd like to be able to clearly
>>>>> check if the function failed to read the register altogether OR if
>>>>> not, check the returned value of the register. Mixing these two
>>>>> together won't do us good. But maybe I just fail to understand your
>>>>> proposal, if so, then I appologize.
>>>> Yes, what I am trying to propose is to eliminate the return error check.
>>> But we want to be able to check if there is a failure :)
>>>
>>>> The check whether register read has happened correctly is embedded in
>>>> read_sr/read_cr function itself.
>>>>
>>>>            if (retval<   0) {
>>>>
>>>>                    dev_err(&flash->spi->dev, "error %d reading SR\n",
>>>>
>>>>                                    (int) retval);
>>>>
>>>>                    return retval;
>>>>
>>>>            }
>>>>
>>>> Same goes for read_cr.
>>>> So, if the above condition is not hit, we simply return the read value
>>>> and check it with the respective bits.
>>> Look here:
>>>    107 static int read_sr(struct m25p *flash)
>>>    108 {
>>>    109         ssize_t retval;
>>>    110         u8 code = OPCODE_RDSR;
>>>    111         u8 val;
>>>    112
>>>    113         retval = spi_write_then_read(flash->spi,&code, 1,&val, 1);
>>>    114
>>>    115         if (retval<   0) {
>>>    116                 dev_err(&flash->spi->dev, "error %d reading SR\n",
>>>    117                                 (int) retval);
>>>    118                 return retval;
>>>
>>> here you return error value IFF spi_write_then_read() fails for some
>>> reason.
>>>
>>>    119         }
>>>    120
>>>    121         return val;
>>>
>>> here you return actual value of the register.
>>>
>>>    122 }
>>>
>>> This is how I'd change the function to make it less error-prone:
>>>
>>> *107 static int read_sr(struct m25p *flash, u8 *rval)
>>>
>>>    108 {
>>>    109         ssize_t retval;
>>>    110         u8 code = OPCODE_RDSR;
>>>    111         u8 val;
>>>    112
>>>    113         retval = spi_write_then_read(flash->spi,&code, 1,&val, 1);
>>>    114
>>>    115         if (retval<   0) {
>>>    116                 dev_err(&flash->spi->dev, "error %d reading SR\n",
>>>    117                                 (int) retval);
>>>    118                 return retval;
>>>    119         }
>>>
>>> *120         *rval = val;
>>> *121         return 0;
>>>
>>>    122 }
>>>
>>> This way, you can check if the SPI read failed and if so, handle it in
>>> some way. The return value would only be valid if this function returned
>>> 0.
>> I got this, but do you think its necessary to have two checks for verifying
>> whether read passed. ?
> Yes of course it is necessary, how else would you be able to tell if the value
> is valid ? Sure, you can depend on negative integer here and on the fact that
> the u8 will never be 32-bits wide (to produce a negative integer when the return
> value is valid), but personally I think this is error-prone as hell.
>
>> If I go by your code above, after returning from above,
>> check for return value for successful read
>> and then check the respective bit set(SR_*). ?
> Yes, you will be checking the bit in SR only if you are sure the value is valid.
hmm..alrite I will do the cleanup and send v2.