On 18/02/2026 at 14:20:56 GMT, Peter Robinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 at 13:40, Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hello Tom, >> >> On 16/02/2026 at 09:31:10 -06, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 09:21:55AM +0100, Michael Walle wrote: >> >> On Sat Feb 14, 2026 at 7:58 PM CET, Conor Dooley wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 10:46:07AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote: >> >> >> Hey all, >> >> >> >> >> >> To be blunt, U-Boot needs help with reviewing and maintaining the SPI >> >> >> and SPI-NOR subsystems. We haven't had someone with time to actively >> >> >> work in this area for some time. I'm going through the outstanding >> >> >> changes now, but it also seems a common problem is that with respect to >> >> >> device IDs, most of the new ones also aren't in the upstream Linux >> >> >> Kernel. Is there some better and generic solution we're missing so that >> >> >> we don't have large and often growing device ID tables? I'd rather not >> >> >> make that problem worse, so I've rejected two of those types of updates >> >> >> today and I'm just setting aside a large number of others. >> >> > >> >> > Dunno if your timing was cursed on sending this, but Tudor submitted his >> >> > resignation from spi-nor maintainership in the kernel about 10 mins >> >> > after. >> >> > I think Michael Walle might be responsible for what you're talking about >> >> > here, with his 773bbe1044973 ("mtd: spi-nor: add generic flash driver"), >> >> > but idk jack about spi-nor stuff. >> >> >> >> Yeah. Nowadays SPI-NOR flashes come with self describing tables, >> >> which are already supported by u-boot, I think. The only change that >> >> seems to be missing is the fallback to it if an id isn't found in >> >> the flashdb. Only thing is, the SFDP doesn't describe all features, >> >> most prominent example being locking. So if you need that, you'll >> >> still need to have an entry per flash. >> >> >> >> In fact, in linux I'm planning to change to make it probe SFDP first >> >> and then amend it with the flashdb information (if there is an >> >> entry). >> > >> > Thanks for explaining. So in that U-Boot does have SFDP support, the >> > first thing is platforms should likely be enabling that instead of just >> > adding IDs, at least for basic support. >> >> Yes. There will be the need for IDs anyways, for those "extra" "non >> sfdp" features, but that should reduce the load. For example, shall we >> consider block protection in U-Boot or not? This is a useful feature, >> but at the same time, do we really need it in a Bootloader? This is open >> to discussion. > > By block protection do you mean for features like rpmc counters for > rollback protection? If so I suspect there's some usefulness to > supporting it given U-Boot ends up being the entry point for FW stack > updates using mechanisms like UEFI capsule support. Sounds like a legitimate use case. I was actually referring to Software Block Protection bits (BP, TB, INV). Thanks, Miquèl
