spi-nor: maxronix MX25L12835F support

[Heiko Thiery]

Am Do., 18. Feb. 2021 um 11:26 Uhr schrieb <Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com>:
>
> On 2/18/21 12:15 PM, Heiko Thiery wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >
> > Hi Tudor,
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>>> Thinking loud, now we do a static initialization of flash params, that
> >>>> can be overwritten dynamically by SFDP. How about doing the params init
> >>>> the other way around. Try first to dynamically discover the params via
> >>>> SFDP, and if SFDP fails or if it is not defined, do the static init via
> >>>> flags. That would spare some code. And new flash IDs will have less flags
> >>>> declared, and we'll better track faulty SFDP flashes.
> >>>
> >>> I am a newbie but it sounds reasonable. I made a first attempt and
> >>
> >> Let's first see if all parties find the idea good (I'll have to double check
> >> it myself). Vignesh and others might help.
> >>
> >> Until then can you try the patch form below and see if you can do the
> >> reads in quad mode?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> ta
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> >> index 0522304f52fa..718d0b75df91 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> >> @@ -3099,7 +3099,8 @@ static int spi_nor_init_params(struct spi_nor *nor)
> >>         spi_nor_manufacturer_init_params(nor);
> >>
> >>         if ((nor->info->flags & (SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ |
> >> -                                SPI_NOR_OCTAL_READ | SPI_NOR_OCTAL_DTR_READ)) &&
> >> +                                SPI_NOR_OCTAL_READ | SPI_NOR_OCTAL_DTR_READ |
> >> +                                SPI_NOR_AIM_SFDP)) &&
> >>             !(nor->info->flags & SPI_NOR_SKIP_SFDP))
> >>                 spi_nor_sfdp_init_params(nor);
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h
> >> index 4a3f7f150b5d..3495549815e6 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h
> >> @@ -338,6 +338,11 @@ struct flash_info {
> >>                                          * protection bits. Usually these will
> >>                                          * power-up in a write-protected state.
> >>                                          */
> >> +#define SPI_NOR_AIM_SFDP       BIT(23) /* Try to parse SFDP. Used by flashes
> >> +                                        * that share the same JEDEC-ID, but
> >> +                                        * where a flash defines the SFDP tables
> >> +                                        * and the other doesn't.
> >> +                                        */
> >>
> >>         /* Part specific fixup hooks. */
> >>         const struct spi_nor_fixups *fixups;
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/macronix.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/macronix.c
> >> index 9203abaac229..1ebce775eae4 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/macronix.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/macronix.c
> >> @@ -50,7 +50,8 @@ static const struct flash_info macronix_parts[] = {
> >>         { "mx25u4035",   INFO(0xc22533, 0, 64 * 1024,   8, SECT_4K) },
> >>         { "mx25u8035",   INFO(0xc22534, 0, 64 * 1024,  16, SECT_4K) },
> >>         { "mx25u6435f",  INFO(0xc22537, 0, 64 * 1024, 128, SECT_4K) },
> >> -       { "mx25l12805d", INFO(0xc22018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, SECT_4K) },
> >> +       { "mx25l12805d", INFO(0xc22018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256,
> >> +                             SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_AIM_SFDP) },
> >>         { "mx25l12855e", INFO(0xc22618, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, 0) },
> >>         { "mx25r1635f",  INFO(0xc22815, 0, 64 * 1024,  32,
> >>                               SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ |
> >
> > I tried your patch and it works like expected. I can now read the
> > whole flash in ~2sec while without that it was ~6sec.
> >
> > # time dd if=/dev/mtd0 of=dump.bin
> > 32768+0 records in
> > 32768+0 records out
> > real 0m 2.08s
> > user 0m 0.01s
> > sys 0m 2.06s
> >
> > vs.
> >
> > # time dd if=/dev/mtd0 of=dump.bin
> > 32768+0 records in
> > 32768+0 records out
> > real 0m 6.16s
> > user 0m 0.05s
> > sys 0m 6.09s
> >
> >
>
> Great, thanks!
>
> > Should I prepare a patch with that change or will you do?
>
> Let's wait for a few days, so others can intervene. I'd like to
> clarify what's happening on mx66l51235l too.

Sounds good. Thanks.

-- 
Heiko