Re: [PATCH v6] mtd: handle partitioning on devices with 0 erasesize

[Brian Norris]

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 08:00:42AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri,  9 Jun 2017 15:58:31 +1200
> Chris Packham  wrote:
> 
> > erasesize is meaningful for flash devices but for SRAM there is no
> > concept of an erase block so erasesize is set to 0. When partitioning
> > these devices instead of ensuring partitions fall on erasesize
> > boundaries we ensure they fall on writesize boundaries.
> > 
> > Helped-by: Boris Brezillon 
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Packham 
> 
> Acked-by: Boris Brezillon 

Thanks. Applied to l2-mtd.git

Re: [PATCH v6] mtd: handle partitioning on devices with 0 erasesize

[Brian Norris]

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 08:00:42AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri,  9 Jun 2017 15:58:31 +1200
> Chris Packham  wrote:
> 
> > erasesize is meaningful for flash devices but for SRAM there is no
> > concept of an erase block so erasesize is set to 0. When partitioning
> > these devices instead of ensuring partitions fall on erasesize
> > boundaries we ensure they fall on writesize boundaries.
> > 
> > Helped-by: Boris Brezillon 
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Packham 
> 
> Acked-by: Boris Brezillon 

Thanks. Applied to l2-mtd.git

Re: [PATCH v6] mtd: handle partitioning on devices with 0 erasesize

[Boris Brezillon]

On Fri,  9 Jun 2017 15:58:31 +1200
Chris Packham  wrote:

> erasesize is meaningful for flash devices but for SRAM there is no
> concept of an erase block so erasesize is set to 0. When partitioning
> these devices instead of ensuring partitions fall on erasesize
> boundaries we ensure they fall on writesize boundaries.
> 
> Helped-by: Boris Brezillon 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham 

Acked-by: Boris Brezillon 

> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - new
> Changes in v4:
> - None
> Changes in v5:
> - None (yet). There is some active discussion on this so it may change.
>   patch 4/5 is somewhat dependent on this but only if partitions are
>   specified on the dt node.
>   Changes in v6:
> - Use MTD_NO_ERASE flag to decide whether to use writesize or erasesize
>   for alignment purposes
> 
>  drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c | 26 +-
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
> index ea5e5307f667..2e152e53ace0 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
> @@ -393,8 +393,12 @@ static struct mtd_part *allocate_partition(struct 
> mtd_info *master,
>   const struct mtd_partition *part, int partno,
>   uint64_t cur_offset)
>  {
> + int wr_alignment = (master->flags & MTD_NO_ERASE) ? master->writesize:
> + master->erasesize;
>   struct mtd_part *slave;
> + u32 remainder;
>   char *name;
> + u64 tmp;
>  
>   /* allocate the partition structure */
>   slave = kzalloc(sizeof(*slave), GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -499,10 +503,11 @@ static struct mtd_part *allocate_partition(struct 
> mtd_info *master,
>   if (slave->offset == MTDPART_OFS_APPEND)
>   slave->offset = cur_offset;
>   if (slave->offset == MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK) {
> + tmp = cur_offset;
>   slave->offset = cur_offset;
> - if (mtd_mod_by_eb(cur_offset, master) != 0) {
> - /* Round up to next erasesize */
> - slave->offset = (mtd_div_by_eb(cur_offset, master) + 1) 
> * master->erasesize;
> + remainder = do_div(tmp, wr_alignment);
> + if (remainder) {
> + slave->offset += wr_alignment - remainder;
>   printk(KERN_NOTICE "Moving partition %d: "
>  "0x%012llx -> 0x%012llx\n", partno,
>  (unsigned long long)cur_offset, (unsigned long 
> long)slave->offset);
> @@ -567,19 +572,22 @@ static struct mtd_part *allocate_partition(struct 
> mtd_info *master,
>   slave->mtd.erasesize = master->erasesize;
>   }
>  
> - if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) &&
> - mtd_mod_by_eb(slave->offset, >mtd)) {
> + tmp = slave->offset;
> + remainder = do_div(tmp, wr_alignment);
> + if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) && remainder) {
>   /* Doesn't start on a boundary of major erase size */
>   /* FIXME: Let it be writable if it is on a boundary of
>* _minor_ erase size though */
>   slave->mtd.flags &= ~MTD_WRITEABLE;
> - printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't start on an 
> erase block boundary -- force read-only\n",
> + printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't start on an 
> erase/write block boundary -- force read-only\n",
>   part->name);
>   }
> - if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) &&
> - mtd_mod_by_eb(slave->mtd.size, >mtd)) {
> +
> + tmp = slave->mtd.size;
> + remainder = do_div(tmp, wr_alignment);
> + if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) && remainder) {
>   slave->mtd.flags &= ~MTD_WRITEABLE;
> - printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't end on an 
> erase block -- force read-only\n",
> + printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't end on an 
> erase/write block -- force read-only\n",
>   part->name);
>   }
>  

Re: [PATCH v6] mtd: handle partitioning on devices with 0 erasesize

[Boris Brezillon]

On Fri,  9 Jun 2017 15:58:31 +1200
Chris Packham  wrote:

> erasesize is meaningful for flash devices but for SRAM there is no
> concept of an erase block so erasesize is set to 0. When partitioning
> these devices instead of ensuring partitions fall on erasesize
> boundaries we ensure they fall on writesize boundaries.
> 
> Helped-by: Boris Brezillon 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham 

Acked-by: Boris Brezillon 

> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - new
> Changes in v4:
> - None
> Changes in v5:
> - None (yet). There is some active discussion on this so it may change.
>   patch 4/5 is somewhat dependent on this but only if partitions are
>   specified on the dt node.
>   Changes in v6:
> - Use MTD_NO_ERASE flag to decide whether to use writesize or erasesize
>   for alignment purposes
> 
>  drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c | 26 +-
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
> index ea5e5307f667..2e152e53ace0 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
> @@ -393,8 +393,12 @@ static struct mtd_part *allocate_partition(struct 
> mtd_info *master,
>   const struct mtd_partition *part, int partno,
>   uint64_t cur_offset)
>  {
> + int wr_alignment = (master->flags & MTD_NO_ERASE) ? master->writesize:
> + master->erasesize;
>   struct mtd_part *slave;
> + u32 remainder;
>   char *name;
> + u64 tmp;
>  
>   /* allocate the partition structure */
>   slave = kzalloc(sizeof(*slave), GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -499,10 +503,11 @@ static struct mtd_part *allocate_partition(struct 
> mtd_info *master,
>   if (slave->offset == MTDPART_OFS_APPEND)
>   slave->offset = cur_offset;
>   if (slave->offset == MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK) {
> + tmp = cur_offset;
>   slave->offset = cur_offset;
> - if (mtd_mod_by_eb(cur_offset, master) != 0) {
> - /* Round up to next erasesize */
> - slave->offset = (mtd_div_by_eb(cur_offset, master) + 1) 
> * master->erasesize;
> + remainder = do_div(tmp, wr_alignment);
> + if (remainder) {
> + slave->offset += wr_alignment - remainder;
>   printk(KERN_NOTICE "Moving partition %d: "
>  "0x%012llx -> 0x%012llx\n", partno,
>  (unsigned long long)cur_offset, (unsigned long 
> long)slave->offset);
> @@ -567,19 +572,22 @@ static struct mtd_part *allocate_partition(struct 
> mtd_info *master,
>   slave->mtd.erasesize = master->erasesize;
>   }
>  
> - if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) &&
> - mtd_mod_by_eb(slave->offset, >mtd)) {
> + tmp = slave->offset;
> + remainder = do_div(tmp, wr_alignment);
> + if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) && remainder) {
>   /* Doesn't start on a boundary of major erase size */
>   /* FIXME: Let it be writable if it is on a boundary of
>* _minor_ erase size though */
>   slave->mtd.flags &= ~MTD_WRITEABLE;
> - printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't start on an 
> erase block boundary -- force read-only\n",
> + printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't start on an 
> erase/write block boundary -- force read-only\n",
>   part->name);
>   }
> - if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) &&
> - mtd_mod_by_eb(slave->mtd.size, >mtd)) {
> +
> + tmp = slave->mtd.size;
> + remainder = do_div(tmp, wr_alignment);
> + if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) && remainder) {
>   slave->mtd.flags &= ~MTD_WRITEABLE;
> - printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't end on an 
> erase block -- force read-only\n",
> + printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't end on an 
> erase/write block -- force read-only\n",
>   part->name);
>   }
>  

Re: [PATCH v6] mtd: handle partitioning on devices with 0 erasesize

[Brian Norris]

Thanks Chris!

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:58:31PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote:
> erasesize is meaningful for flash devices but for SRAM there is no
> concept of an erase block so erasesize is set to 0. When partitioning
> these devices instead of ensuring partitions fall on erasesize
> boundaries we ensure they fall on writesize boundaries.
> 
> Helped-by: Boris Brezillon 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham 

Looks good to me. Did Boris have any last thoughts? Or else I'll merge
this.

Re: [PATCH v6] mtd: handle partitioning on devices with 0 erasesize

[Brian Norris]

Thanks Chris!

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:58:31PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote:
> erasesize is meaningful for flash devices but for SRAM there is no
> concept of an erase block so erasesize is set to 0. When partitioning
> these devices instead of ensuring partitions fall on erasesize
> boundaries we ensure they fall on writesize boundaries.
> 
> Helped-by: Boris Brezillon 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham 

Looks good to me. Did Boris have any last thoughts? Or else I'll merge
this.

[PATCH v6] mtd: handle partitioning on devices with 0 erasesize

[Chris Packham]

erasesize is meaningful for flash devices but for SRAM there is no
concept of an erase block so erasesize is set to 0. When partitioning
these devices instead of ensuring partitions fall on erasesize
boundaries we ensure they fall on writesize boundaries.

Helped-by: Boris Brezillon 
Signed-off-by: Chris Packham 
---
Changes in v3:
- new
Changes in v4:
- None
Changes in v5:
- None (yet). There is some active discussion on this so it may change.
  patch 4/5 is somewhat dependent on this but only if partitions are
  specified on the dt node.
  Changes in v6:
- Use MTD_NO_ERASE flag to decide whether to use writesize or erasesize
  for alignment purposes

 drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c | 26 +-
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
index ea5e5307f667..2e152e53ace0 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
@@ -393,8 +393,12 @@ static struct mtd_part *allocate_partition(struct mtd_info 
*master,
const struct mtd_partition *part, int partno,
uint64_t cur_offset)
 {
+   int wr_alignment = (master->flags & MTD_NO_ERASE) ? master->writesize:
+   master->erasesize;
struct mtd_part *slave;
+   u32 remainder;
char *name;
+   u64 tmp;
 
/* allocate the partition structure */
slave = kzalloc(sizeof(*slave), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -499,10 +503,11 @@ static struct mtd_part *allocate_partition(struct 
mtd_info *master,
if (slave->offset == MTDPART_OFS_APPEND)
slave->offset = cur_offset;
if (slave->offset == MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK) {
+   tmp = cur_offset;
slave->offset = cur_offset;
-   if (mtd_mod_by_eb(cur_offset, master) != 0) {
-   /* Round up to next erasesize */
-   slave->offset = (mtd_div_by_eb(cur_offset, master) + 1) 
* master->erasesize;
+   remainder = do_div(tmp, wr_alignment);
+   if (remainder) {
+   slave->offset += wr_alignment - remainder;
printk(KERN_NOTICE "Moving partition %d: "
   "0x%012llx -> 0x%012llx\n", partno,
   (unsigned long long)cur_offset, (unsigned long 
long)slave->offset);
@@ -567,19 +572,22 @@ static struct mtd_part *allocate_partition(struct 
mtd_info *master,
slave->mtd.erasesize = master->erasesize;
}
 
-   if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) &&
-   mtd_mod_by_eb(slave->offset, >mtd)) {
+   tmp = slave->offset;
+   remainder = do_div(tmp, wr_alignment);
+   if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) && remainder) {
/* Doesn't start on a boundary of major erase size */
/* FIXME: Let it be writable if it is on a boundary of
 * _minor_ erase size though */
slave->mtd.flags &= ~MTD_WRITEABLE;
-   printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't start on an 
erase block boundary -- force read-only\n",
+   printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't start on an 
erase/write block boundary -- force read-only\n",
part->name);
}
-   if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) &&
-   mtd_mod_by_eb(slave->mtd.size, >mtd)) {
+
+   tmp = slave->mtd.size;
+   remainder = do_div(tmp, wr_alignment);
+   if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) && remainder) {
slave->mtd.flags &= ~MTD_WRITEABLE;
-   printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't end on an 
erase block -- force read-only\n",
+   printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't end on an 
erase/write block -- force read-only\n",
part->name);
}
 
-- 
2.13.0

[PATCH v6] mtd: handle partitioning on devices with 0 erasesize

[Chris Packham]

erasesize is meaningful for flash devices but for SRAM there is no
concept of an erase block so erasesize is set to 0. When partitioning
these devices instead of ensuring partitions fall on erasesize
boundaries we ensure they fall on writesize boundaries.

Helped-by: Boris Brezillon 
Signed-off-by: Chris Packham 
---
Changes in v3:
- new
Changes in v4:
- None
Changes in v5:
- None (yet). There is some active discussion on this so it may change.
  patch 4/5 is somewhat dependent on this but only if partitions are
  specified on the dt node.
  Changes in v6:
- Use MTD_NO_ERASE flag to decide whether to use writesize or erasesize
  for alignment purposes

 drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c | 26 +-
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
index ea5e5307f667..2e152e53ace0 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
@@ -393,8 +393,12 @@ static struct mtd_part *allocate_partition(struct mtd_info 
*master,
const struct mtd_partition *part, int partno,
uint64_t cur_offset)
 {
+   int wr_alignment = (master->flags & MTD_NO_ERASE) ? master->writesize:
+   master->erasesize;
struct mtd_part *slave;
+   u32 remainder;
char *name;
+   u64 tmp;
 
/* allocate the partition structure */
slave = kzalloc(sizeof(*slave), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -499,10 +503,11 @@ static struct mtd_part *allocate_partition(struct 
mtd_info *master,
if (slave->offset == MTDPART_OFS_APPEND)
slave->offset = cur_offset;
if (slave->offset == MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK) {
+   tmp = cur_offset;
slave->offset = cur_offset;
-   if (mtd_mod_by_eb(cur_offset, master) != 0) {
-   /* Round up to next erasesize */
-   slave->offset = (mtd_div_by_eb(cur_offset, master) + 1) 
* master->erasesize;
+   remainder = do_div(tmp, wr_alignment);
+   if (remainder) {
+   slave->offset += wr_alignment - remainder;
printk(KERN_NOTICE "Moving partition %d: "
   "0x%012llx -> 0x%012llx\n", partno,
   (unsigned long long)cur_offset, (unsigned long 
long)slave->offset);
@@ -567,19 +572,22 @@ static struct mtd_part *allocate_partition(struct 
mtd_info *master,
slave->mtd.erasesize = master->erasesize;
}
 
-   if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) &&
-   mtd_mod_by_eb(slave->offset, >mtd)) {
+   tmp = slave->offset;
+   remainder = do_div(tmp, wr_alignment);
+   if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) && remainder) {
/* Doesn't start on a boundary of major erase size */
/* FIXME: Let it be writable if it is on a boundary of
 * _minor_ erase size though */
slave->mtd.flags &= ~MTD_WRITEABLE;
-   printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't start on an 
erase block boundary -- force read-only\n",
+   printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't start on an 
erase/write block boundary -- force read-only\n",
part->name);
}
-   if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) &&
-   mtd_mod_by_eb(slave->mtd.size, >mtd)) {
+
+   tmp = slave->mtd.size;
+   remainder = do_div(tmp, wr_alignment);
+   if ((slave->mtd.flags & MTD_WRITEABLE) && remainder) {
slave->mtd.flags &= ~MTD_WRITEABLE;
-   printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't end on an 
erase block -- force read-only\n",
+   printk(KERN_WARNING"mtd: partition \"%s\" doesn't end on an 
erase/write block -- force read-only\n",
part->name);
}
 
-- 
2.13.0