On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:08:33AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:22 AM Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 06:06:03PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 11:11 AM Mika Westerberg
> > >
> > > The mtd core just checks both the permissions on the device node (which
> > > default to 0600 without any special udev rules) and the MTD_WRITEABLE
> > > on the underlying device that is controlled by the module parameter
> > > in case of intel-spi{,-platform,-pci}.c.
> >
> > OK, thanks.
> >
> > Since we cannot really get rid of the module parameter (AFAIK there are
> > users for it), I still think we should just make the "writeable" to
> > apply to the PCI part as well. That should at least make it consistent,
> > and it also solves Daniel's case.
>
> Can you explain Daniel's case then? I still don't understand what he
> actually wants.
>
> As I keep repeating, the module parameter *does* apply to the pci
> driver front-end since it determines whether the driver will disallow
> writes to the mtd device without it. The only difference is that the pci
> driver will attempt to set the hardware bit without checking the
> module parameter first, while the platform driver does not. If the
> module parameter is not set however, the state of the hardware
> bit is never checked again.
I think Daniel wants the PCI driver not to set the hardware bit by
default (same as the platform driver).
