On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 04:48:47AM +0000, Abbarapu, Venkatesh wrote: > Hi, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tom Rini <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2024 8:47 PM > > To: Abbarapu, Venkatesh <[email protected]> > > Cc: Marek Vasut <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; Simek, Michal > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; u- > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > git > > (AMD-Xilinx) <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Fix the spi_nor_read() when config > > SPI_STACKED_PARALLEL is enabled > > > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2024 at 03:34:33AM +0000, Abbarapu, Venkatesh wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Marek Vasut <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2024 2:19 AM > > > > To: Abbarapu, Venkatesh <[email protected]>; > > > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > > > > Cc: Simek, Michal <[email protected]>; > > > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > > > [email protected]; [email protected]; > > > > [email protected]; git (AMD-Xilinx) <[email protected]> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mtd: spi-nor: Fix the spi_nor_read() when > > > > config SPI_STACKED_PARALLEL is enabled > > > > > > > > On 12/24/24 4:37 PM, Venkatesh Yadav Abbarapu wrote: > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > @@ -1593,18 +1596,22 @@ static int spi_nor_read(struct mtd_info > > > > > *mtd, loff_t > > > > from, size_t len, > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > while (len) { > > > > > - bank = (u32)from / SZ_16M; > > > > > - if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_PARALLEL) > > > > > - bank /= 2; > > > > > + read_len = len; > > > > > + offset = from; > > > > > > > > > > - rem_bank_len = SZ_16M * (bank + 1); > > > > > - if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_PARALLEL) > > > > > - rem_bank_len *= 2; > > > > > - rem_bank_len -= from; > > > > > + if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(SPI_FLASH_BAR)) { > > > > > + bank = (u32)from / SZ_16M; > > > > > + if (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_PARALLEL) > > > > > + bank /= 2; > > > > Is this code which operates on (nor->flags & SNOR_F_HAS_PARALLEL) > > > > really supposed to be enabled if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(SPI_FLASH_BAR)) > > > > is SET or instead if STACKED_PARALLEL symbol is SET ? > > > > > > The FLASH_BAR and STACKED_PARALLEL configs are independent. They > > won't depend on each other. > > > > At this point in the release cycle, I'd really rather see things as: > > if (CONFIG_SPI_STACKED_PARALLEL) { > > ... anything needed for the new support mode .. > > } else { > > ... the way it used to be ... > > } > > > > And for v2025.04 we can move the codebase forward. But I'm worried at this > > point > > I'm going to have to revert all of the stacked stuff, which could get > > messy, in order to > > avoid regressions elsewhere. > > I am updating the parallel/stacked code based on the config > SPI_STACKED_PARALLEL and not touching the default code.
Right, but to be clear, are you bringing back the default code to the state / algorithms it was in for v2024.10? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
