On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 10:47 PM <tudor.amba...@microchip.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 6/22/21 8:21 AM, chao zeng wrote:
> > From: Chao Zeng <chao.z...@siemens.com>
> >
> > When operating the write-protection flash,spi_flash_std_write() and
> > spi_flash_std_erase() would return wrong result.The flash is protected,
> > but write or erase the flash would show "OK".
> >
> > Check the flash write protection state if the write-protection has enbale
> > before operating the flash.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chao Zeng <chao.z...@siemens.com>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
> > index 3befbe91ca..f06e6b88bd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c
> > @@ -109,6 +109,11 @@ static int spi_flash_std_write(struct udevice *dev,
> > u32 offset, size_t len,
> > struct mtd_info *mtd = &flash->mtd;
> > size_t retlen;
> >
> > + if (flash->flash_is_locked && flash->flash_is_locked(flash, offset,
> > len)) {
> > + debug("SF: Flash is locked\n");
> > + return -ENOPROTOOPT;
>
> Keep a debug message, but return 0 please. Writes or erases on protected areas
> are ignored by the flash, we should reflect that in the code.
Agreed this point, Chao are you fine to do this change while applying it?
Jagan.
