On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 04:33:39PM +0300, Alexander Usyskin wrote:
> Register the on-die nvm device with the mtd subsystem.
> Refcount nvm object on _get and _put mtd callbacks.
> For erase operation address and size should be 4K aligned.
> For write operation address and size has to be 4bytes aligned.
...
> +static int intel_dg_nvm_init_mtd(struct intel_dg_nvm *nvm, struct device
> *device,
> + unsigned int nparts, bool writable_override)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> + unsigned int n;
> + struct mtd_partition *parts = NULL;
> + int ret;
Reverse xmas order (along with all other places).
> + dev_dbg(device, "registering with mtd\n");
> +
> + nvm->mtd.owner = THIS_MODULE;
> + nvm->mtd.dev.parent = device;
> + nvm->mtd.flags = MTD_CAP_NORFLASH | MTD_WRITEABLE;
Isn't MTD_CAP_NORFLASH already writable?
> + nvm->mtd.type = MTD_DATAFLASH;
> + nvm->mtd.priv = nvm;
> + nvm->mtd._write = intel_dg_mtd_write;
> + nvm->mtd._read = intel_dg_mtd_read;
> + nvm->mtd._erase = intel_dg_mtd_erase;
> + nvm->mtd._get_device = intel_dg_mtd_get_device;
> + nvm->mtd._put_device = intel_dg_mtd_put_device;
> + nvm->mtd.writesize = SZ_1; /* 1 byte granularity */
> + nvm->mtd.erasesize = SZ_4K; /* 4K bytes granularity */
> + nvm->mtd.size = nvm->size;
> +
> + parts = kcalloc(nvm->nregions, sizeof(*parts), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!parts)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + for (i = 0, n = 0; i < nvm->nregions && n < nparts; i++) {
> + if (!nvm->regions[i].is_readable)
> + continue;
> + parts[n].name = nvm->regions[i].name;
> + parts[n].offset = nvm->regions[i].offset;
> + parts[n].size = nvm->regions[i].size;
> + if (!nvm->regions[i].is_writable && !writable_override)
> + parts[n].mask_flags = MTD_WRITEABLE;
> + n++;
> + }
> +
> + ret = mtd_device_register(&nvm->mtd, parts, n);
> +
> + kfree(parts);
I didn't find anything questionable about this, but hope this is tested
and there are no side-effects of this.
> +
Nit: Redundant blank line.
> + return ret;
> +}
Raag
