From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59472C2D0A3 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:35:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0678206B5 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:35:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="CSvnqGSK" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728493AbgKCLfY (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 06:35:24 -0500 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.142]:51800 "EHLO fllv0016.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726058AbgKCLfX (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 06:35:23 -0500 Received: from lelv0265.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.224]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 0A3BZ4a9061252; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 05:35:04 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1604403304; bh=i5qmm6XtD0qOEO+O0ff0XQHneo6s1jIS3e5zUTXHF24=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CSvnqGSKoA1NACbmhJse9FBkl3F1Y7uDVJLiuesvGE24K33uGlRicBzE3ns8OEI1Y /gL3QG8ggOMd6LINvr4Ck7F+UKKpF7k1pIzGsF0y4xthVaOXeUXoc0KmYtwKI26RlJ WJirwK0fmduoEvuzfs4soLngvRB7eWbnkhjZTlDo= Received: from DFLE105.ent.ti.com (dfle105.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.26]) by lelv0265.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0A3BZ4IF049563 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 05:35:04 -0600 Received: from DFLE107.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.28) by DFLE105.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 05:35:04 -0600 Received: from lelv0326.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.84) by DFLE107.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 05:35:04 -0600 Received: from [10.250.233.179] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0326.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 0A3BZ1m3084217; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 05:35:02 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mtd: Make sure UBIFS does not do multi-pass page programming on flashes that don't support it To: Richard Weinberger , Pratyush Yadav CC: Tudor Ambarus , Miquel Raynal , Richard Weinberger , , LKML References: <20201012180404.6476-1-p.yadav@ti.com> <20201027111804.e27pyvf62eksngmp@ti.com> From: Vignesh Raghavendra Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 17:05:01 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/1/20 3:14 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 12:24 PM Pratyush Yadav wrote: >>> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/20201005153138.6437-1-p.yadav@ti.com/ >> >> Ping. Any comments on the series? > > From the UBIFS point of view I'd like to avoid as many device specific > settings as possible. > We check already for NOR flash, checking for NOR *and* SPI_NOR_NO_MULTI_PASS_PP > feels a bit clumsy. > > Tudor, what do you think about SPI_NOR_NO_MULTI_PASS_PP? > This kind of NOR seems to be a little NAND'ish. Maybe we can hide this detail > in the mtd framework? > Agree with Richard. I don't see need for SPI_NOR_NO_MULTI_PASS_PP. From MTD point of view setting mtd->writesize to be equal to pagesize should be enough. Its upto clients of MTD devices to ensure there is no multi pass programming within a "writesize" block. If this is not clear in the current documentation of struct mtd, then that can be updated. Regards Vignesh