On 02.02.22 10:38, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 02.02.22 09:21, Michael Walle wrote: >> Am 2022-02-02 07:35, schrieb Jan Kiszka: >>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> >>> >>> Do not suggest successful operation if a flash area to be changed is >>> actually locked, thus will not execute the request. Rather report an >>> error and bail out. That's way more user-friendly than asking them to >>> manually check for this case. >>> >>> Derived from original patch by Chao Zeng. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> >>> --- >>> >>> This is the successor of "[PATCH V3] sf: Querying write-protect status >>> before operating the flash", moving the test into the CLI API, see >>> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20220117175628.GQ2631111@bill-the-cat/. >>> >>> cmd/sf.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/cmd/sf.c b/cmd/sf.c >>> index 8bdebd9fd8f..a24e04c690b 100644 >>> --- a/cmd/sf.c >>> +++ b/cmd/sf.c >>> @@ -287,6 +287,12 @@ static int do_spi_flash_read_write(int argc, char >>> *const argv[]) >>> return 1; >>> } >>> >>> + if (strncmp(argv[0], "read", 4) != 0 && flash->flash_is_locked && >>> + flash->flash_is_locked(flash, offset, len)) { >>> + printf("ERROR: flash area is locked\n"); >>> + return 1; >>> + } >> >> Much better to handle it here. But I'm not sure if this is doing >> the right thing: >> >> Eventually, this function is called: >> >> /* >> * Return 1 if the entire region is locked (if @locked is true) or >> unlocked (if >> * @locked is false); 0 otherwise >> */ >> static int stm_check_lock_status_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, u64 >> len, >> u8 sr, bool locked) >> >> So I'd guess if you try to write to an area of the flash where only parts >> are locked, you still see it as unlocked and thus there will be no error. >> Which IMHO is even more confusing for a user. > > I suppose this is why the original patch was placed way more down the > call chain... Back to square #1? Or can/should we split the request into > blocks?
Hmm, no, the other versions should have had the same problem. What about also exposing a "is_unlocked" service? Seems that would have the semantic we need, and there is at least already stm_is_unlocked_sr. But no sst26_is_unlocked. Jan -- Siemens AG, Technology Competence Center Embedded Linux
