On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 04:33:38PM +0300, Alexander Usyskin wrote:
> Implement read(), erase() and write() functions.
...
> +__maybe_unused
> +static unsigned int idg_nvm_get_region(const struct intel_dg_nvm *nvm,
> loff_t from)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nvm->nregions; i++) {
> + if ((nvm->regions[i].offset + nvm->regions[i].size - 1) > from
> &&
Since it's already off by one, I'm wondering if this should be >= ?
> + nvm->regions[i].offset <= from &&
> + nvm->regions[i].size != 0)
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return i;
> +}
...
> +__maybe_unused
> +static ssize_t
> +idg_erase(struct intel_dg_nvm *nvm, u8 region, loff_t from, u64 len, u64
> *fail_addr)
> +{
> + u64 i;
> + const u32 block = 0x10;
> + void __iomem *base = nvm->base;
Reverse xmas order (along with all other places).
> + for (i = 0; i < len; i += SZ_4K) {
> + iowrite32(from + i, base + NVM_ADDRESS_REG);
> + iowrite32(region << 24 | block, base + NVM_ERASE_REG);
> + /* Since the writes are via sguint
sguint?
> + * we cannot do back to back erases.
> + */
> + msleep(50);
> + }
> + return len;
> +}
Raag
