On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 7:06 PM, Ryan Mallon wrote:
> H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:59 PM, Ryan Mallon wrote:
>>
>>> Add support for the non JEDEC SST25L SPI Flash devices.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andre Renaud <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Mallon <[email protected]>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> +struct flash_info {
>>> + const char *name;
>>> + u16 device_id;
>>> + unsigned page_size;
>>> + unsigned nr_pages;
>>> + unsigned erase_size;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +#define to_sst25l_flash(x) container_of(x, struct sst25l_flash, mtd)
>>> +
>>> +static struct flash_info __devinitdata sst25l_flash_info[] = {
>>> + {"sst25lf020a", 0xbf43, 256, 1024, 32 * 1024},
>>> + {"sst25lf040a", 0xbf44, 256, 2048, 32 * 1024},
>>> +};
>>> +
>>>
>>
>> Ryan,
>>
>> I finally got a chance to test this on my hardware. Previously
>> I was using a hacked version on the m25p80 driver to access the
>> SST23LF020A on my board.
>>
>> The driver works fine but you are only supporting the block erase,
>> SST25L_CMD_BLOCK_ERASE (opcode 0x52). The SST25L chips also can do a
>> sector erase (opcode 0x20) and a full chip erase (opcode 0x60).
>>
> The MTD sub-system doesn't support different types of erases (as far as
> I am aware). We chose to use block erases since they are faster than
> sector erases and the trade-off of having 32k aligned partitions didn't
> seem to bad.
True. The mtd.erasesize is supposed to be the smallest erasable region
on the chip. Thus, the sector size should be used.
>> The full chip erase is not that important but might give a slight
>> performance increase on larger devices. Max block erase time is
>> listed as 25ms at 25MHz in the datasheet. The SST25LF020A contains
>> 8 blocks so it's "typical" full chip erase time should be around
>> 200ms. For comparison, the chip erase time is listed as 100ms.
>>
>> The sector erase is a bigger deal. On the EDB93xx boards one of the
>> SPI flash uses is used to store the MAC address at offset 0x2000 (4K
>> offset). The board can also be configured to boot from offset 0x0000
>> in the SPI flash.
>>
>> Without the sector erase this partition setup results in all of the
>> partitions being forced read-only.
>>
> The updated patch below uses sector erases instead to allow for smaller
> partition sizes.
>
> Linus, is this still okay by you?
I think you could still support the block erase and chip erase internal
to the driver for performance. Maybe something like the following?
static int __sst25l_erase(struct sst25l_flash *flash, u32 offset, u8 cmd)
{
u8 command[4];
int err;
err = sst25l_write_enable(flash, 1);
if (err)
return err;
command[0] = cmd;
if (cmd != SST25L_CMD_CHIP_ERASE) {
command[1] = offset >> 16;
command[2] = offset >> 8;
command[3] = offset;
}
err = spi_write(flash->spi, command,
cmd == SST25L_CMD_CHIP_ERASE ? 1 : 4);
if (err)
return err;
err = sst25l_wait_till_ready(flash);
if (err)
return err;
return sst25l_write_enable(flash, 0);
}
static int sst25l_erase(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct erase_info *instr)
{
struct sst25l_flash *flash = to_sst25l_flash(mtd);
u32 block = flash->block_size;
u32 sector = flash->sector_size;
u32 addr, end;
int err;
/* Sanity checks */
if (instr->addr + instr->len > flash->mtd.size)
return -EINVAL;
if ((u32)instr->len % mtd->erasesize)
return -EINVAL;
if ((u32)instr->addr % mtd->erasesize)
return -EINVAL;
addr = instr->addr;
end = addr + instr->len;
mutex_lock(&flash->lock);
err = sst25l_wait_till_ready(flash);
if (err)
return err;
if (instr->len == mtd->size) {
err = __sst25l_erase(flash, addr, SST25L_CMD_CHIP_ERASE);
if (err) {
mutex_unlock(&flash->lock);
instr->state = MTD_ERASE_FAILED;
dev_err(&flash->spi->dev, "Erase failed\n");
return err;
}
} else {
while (addr < end) {
u32 erasesize;
if (addr % block || addr + block > end) {
erasesize = sector;
err = __sst25l_erase(flash, addr,
SST25L_CMD_SECTOR_ERASE);
} else {
erasesize = block;
err = __sst25l_erase(flash, addr,
SST25L_CMD_BLOCK_ERASE);
}
if (err) {
mutex_unlock(&flash->lock);
instr->state = MTD_ERASE_FAILED;
dev_err(&flash->spi->dev, "Erase failed\n");
return err;
}
addr += erasesize;
}
}
mutex_unlock(&flash->lock);
instr->state = MTD_ERASE_DONE;
mtd_erase_callback(instr);
return 0;
}
You would need to add sector_size and block_size to the ss25l_flash
and flash_info structs and modify flash_info as appropriate. Then copy
those over during the probe and use sector_size for mtd.erasesize.
That way we get the 4K erase size but still get the performance increase
for block and chip erase.
What do you think?
Regards,
Hartley
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
spi-devel-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spi-devel-general
