From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932350AbWHQBSf (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:18:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932348AbWHQBSf (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:18:35 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]:46480 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932351AbWHQBSe (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:18:34 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=gaCJaK42DWeGH6sknlC/9BkdQf3Y+DUWMMNCvJVt2SBMwaTdVTTIMYeh4XpccsEaPx7ADhGbHGHtmee3IOhzd4vZL3iGzNcCSVlDAINwC7YZHlcl4ULkkXRPlsICkz7G5rSmovDTLSgxECY+2Z2ckwa8q0rqSjizMr/ZNGVZXyE= Message-ID: <625fc13d0608161818n102b1571t1c0b967a530589ef@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:18:32 -0500 From: "Josh Boyer" To: "Haavard Skinnemoen" Subject: Re: [PATCH] MTD: Add lock/unlock operations for Atmel AT49BV6416 Cc: "David Woodhouse" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060809110607.244db551@cad-250-152.norway.atmel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <11546801142874-git-send-email-hskinnemoen@atmel.com> <1154680114836-git-send-email-hskinnemoen@atmel.com> <1154680873.31031.182.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20060809110607.244db551@cad-250-152.norway.atmel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 8/9/06, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:41:12 +0800 > David Woodhouse wrote: > > > On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 10:28 +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > > > What's the best way to do this? Unlock the flash in the > > > board-specific mapping driver perhaps? > > > > That's what we used to do. If more people are emulating the Intel > > brain damage and having chips which render the lock operation entirely > > pointless by locking the chips at every power cycle, then I suppose we > > ought to consider making auto-unlock a function of the chip type. > > It appears that Atmel has reverted this in later chips, like the > AT49BV642D. Updated patch below, if you still want it. Please disregard > the jedec_probe patch as I've got AT49BV6416 working in CFI mode now. > > This patch depends on "MTD: Convert Atmel PRI information to AMD > format" which I just submitted, as it needs the definition > of CFI_MFR_ATMEL. I've added this patch to my tree. josh