> Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 03/10] mtd: intel-dg: implement access functions
>
> 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 >= ?
>
Yep, will fix
> > + 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).
Will do
>
> > + 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?
Sgunit, I suppose - will fix
>
> > + * we cannot do back to back erases.
> > + */
> > + msleep(50);
> > + }
> > + return len;
> > +}
>
> Raag
