mirror of
https://mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn/git/linux.git
synced 2025-01-06 13:55:08 +08:00
a833383732
This is considered bad for the following reasons: (1) We only support the block protection with BPn bits for write protection. Not all SST parts support this. (2) Newly added flash chip will automatically inherit the "has locking" support and thus needs to explicitly tested. Better be opt-in instead of opt-out. (3) There are already supported flashes which doesn't support the locking scheme. So I assume this wasn't properly tested before adding that chip; which enforces my previous argument that locking support should be an opt-in. Remove the global flag and add individual flags to all flashes which supports BP locking. In particular the following flashes don't support the BP scheme: - SST26VF016B - SST26WF016B - SST26VF064B Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> Signed-off-by: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com> Reviewed-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201203162959.29589-5-michael@walle.cc |
||
---|---|---|
.. | ||
controllers | ||
atmel.c | ||
catalyst.c | ||
core.c | ||
core.h | ||
eon.c | ||
esmt.c | ||
everspin.c | ||
fujitsu.c | ||
gigadevice.c | ||
intel.c | ||
issi.c | ||
Kconfig | ||
macronix.c | ||
Makefile | ||
micron-st.c | ||
sfdp.c | ||
sfdp.h | ||
spansion.c | ||
sst.c | ||
winbond.c | ||
xilinx.c | ||
xmc.c |