lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: write support for minor aligned partitions
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021, at 12:28, John Thomson wrote:
> --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
> @@ -38,10 +38,11 @@ static struct mtd_info *allocate_partition(struct
> mtd_info *parent,
> struct mtd_info *master = mtd_get_master(parent);
> int wr_alignment = (parent->flags & MTD_NO_ERASE) ?
> master->writesize : master->erasesize;
> + int wr_alignment_minor;

int wr_alignment_minor = 0;

> + if (!(child->flags & MTD_NO_ERASE)) {
> wr_alignment = child->erasesize;
> + if (child->erasesize_minor)

if (child->erasesize_minor && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MTD_SPI_NOR_USE_VARIABLE_ERASE)) {
Config test wrap wr_alignment_minor being set,
so that a partition on a minor boundary is only set writeable if the non-uniform erase path can be used.

> + wr_alignment_minor = child->erasesize_minor;
> + }

> + if (wr_alignment_minor) {

smatch picked up a tested uninitialized symbol 'wr_alignment_minor' here,
initialise as 0.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>

> + if ((!wr_alignment_minor) || (wr_alignment_minor && remainder_minor != 0)) {

If it is safe to boolean test the ints and u32, I should use this consistently?
if ((!wr_alignment_minor) || (wr_alignment_minor && remainder_minor)) {
Or is it clearer to use the math tests?
if ((wr_alignment_minor == 0) || (wr_alignment_minor > 0 && remainder_minor > 0)) {

> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
> @@ -1225,7 +1225,11 @@ static u8 spi_nor_convert_3to4_erase(u8 opcode)
>
> static bool spi_nor_has_uniform_erase(const struct spi_nor *nor)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MTD_SPI_NOR_USE_VARIABLE_ERASE

if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MTD_SPI_NOR_USE_VARIABLE_ERASE)) {
and the closing brace better than the #ifdef here?

> + return false;
> +#else
> return !!nor->params->erase_map.uniform_erase_type;
> +#endif
> }
>
> static void spi_nor_set_4byte_opcodes(struct spi_nor *nor)


Otherwise, is this approach valid, or is there a better method I can use?

Cheers,
--
John Thomson
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-02 21:13    [W:0.128 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site