b3b60f5912
This feature was dropped from U-Boot some time ago:
f12f96cfaf (sf: Drop spl_flash_get_sw_write_prot")
However, we do need a way to see if a flash device is write-protected,
since if it is, it may not be possible to write to do (i.e. failing to
write is expected).
I am not sure of the correct layer to implement this, so this patch is a
stab at it. If spi-flash makes sense then I will add to the 'sf' also.
Re the points mentioned in the removal commit:
1) This kind of requirement can be achieved using existing
flash operations and flash locking API calls instead of
making a separate flash API.
Which uclass is this?
2) Technically there is no real hardware user for this API to
use in the source tree.
I do want coral (at least) to support this.
3) Having a flash operations API for simple register read bits
also make difficult to extend the flash operations.
This new patch only mentions write-protect being on or off, rather than
the actual mechanism.
4) Instead of touching generic code, it is possible to have
this functionality inside spinor operations in the form of
flash hooks or fixups for associated flash chips.
That sounds to me like what drivers are for. But we still need some sort
of API for it to be accessible.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
105 lines
3.0 KiB
C
105 lines
3.0 KiB
C
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
|
|
/*
|
|
* Copyright (C) 2013 Google, Inc
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
#include <common.h>
|
|
#include <command.h>
|
|
#include <dm.h>
|
|
#include <fdtdec.h>
|
|
#include <mapmem.h>
|
|
#include <os.h>
|
|
#include <spi.h>
|
|
#include <spi_flash.h>
|
|
#include <asm/state.h>
|
|
#include <asm/test.h>
|
|
#include <dm/test.h>
|
|
#include <dm/util.h>
|
|
#include <test/test.h>
|
|
#include <test/ut.h>
|
|
|
|
/* Simple test of sandbox SPI flash */
|
|
static int dm_test_spi_flash(struct unit_test_state *uts)
|
|
{
|
|
struct udevice *dev, *emul;
|
|
int full_size = 0x200000;
|
|
int size = 0x10000;
|
|
u8 *src, *dst;
|
|
uint map_size;
|
|
ulong map_base;
|
|
uint offset;
|
|
int i;
|
|
|
|
src = map_sysmem(0x20000, full_size);
|
|
ut_assertok(os_write_file("spi.bin", src, full_size));
|
|
ut_assertok(uclass_first_device_err(UCLASS_SPI_FLASH, &dev));
|
|
|
|
dst = map_sysmem(0x20000 + full_size, full_size);
|
|
ut_assertok(spi_flash_read_dm(dev, 0, size, dst));
|
|
ut_asserteq_mem(src, dst, size);
|
|
|
|
/* Erase */
|
|
ut_assertok(spi_flash_erase_dm(dev, 0, size));
|
|
ut_assertok(spi_flash_read_dm(dev, 0, size, dst));
|
|
for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
|
|
ut_asserteq(dst[i], 0xff);
|
|
|
|
/* Write some new data */
|
|
for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
|
|
src[i] = i;
|
|
ut_assertok(spi_flash_write_dm(dev, 0, size, src));
|
|
ut_assertok(spi_flash_read_dm(dev, 0, size, dst));
|
|
ut_asserteq_mem(src, dst, size);
|
|
|
|
/* Try the write-protect stuff */
|
|
ut_assertok(uclass_first_device_err(UCLASS_SPI_EMUL, &emul));
|
|
ut_asserteq(0, spl_flash_get_sw_write_prot(dev));
|
|
sandbox_sf_set_block_protect(emul, 1);
|
|
ut_asserteq(1, spl_flash_get_sw_write_prot(dev));
|
|
sandbox_sf_set_block_protect(emul, 0);
|
|
ut_asserteq(0, spl_flash_get_sw_write_prot(dev));
|
|
|
|
/* Check mapping */
|
|
ut_assertok(dm_spi_get_mmap(dev, &map_base, &map_size, &offset));
|
|
ut_asserteq(0x1000, map_base);
|
|
ut_asserteq(0x2000, map_size);
|
|
ut_asserteq(0x100, offset);
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* Since we are about to destroy all devices, we must tell sandbox
|
|
* to forget the emulation device
|
|
*/
|
|
sandbox_sf_unbind_emul(state_get_current(), 0, 0);
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|
|
DM_TEST(dm_test_spi_flash, UT_TESTF_SCAN_PDATA | UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT);
|
|
|
|
/* Functional test that sandbox SPI flash works correctly */
|
|
static int dm_test_spi_flash_func(struct unit_test_state *uts)
|
|
{
|
|
/*
|
|
* Create an empty test file and run the SPI flash tests. This is a
|
|
* long way from being a unit test, but it does test SPI device and
|
|
* emulator binding, probing, the SPI flash emulator including
|
|
* device tree decoding, plus the file-based backing store of SPI.
|
|
*
|
|
* More targeted tests could be created to perform the above steps
|
|
* one at a time. This might not increase test coverage much, but
|
|
* it would make bugs easier to find. It's not clear whether the
|
|
* benefit is worth the extra complexity.
|
|
*/
|
|
ut_asserteq(0, run_command_list(
|
|
"host save hostfs - 0 spi.bin 200000;"
|
|
"sf probe;"
|
|
"sf test 0 10000", -1, 0));
|
|
/*
|
|
* Since we are about to destroy all devices, we must tell sandbox
|
|
* to forget the emulation device
|
|
*/
|
|
sandbox_sf_unbind_emul(state_get_current(), 0, 0);
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|
|
DM_TEST(dm_test_spi_flash_func, UT_TESTF_SCAN_PDATA | UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT);
|