diff options
| author | Nick Hainke <vincent@systemli.org> | 2020-10-25 00:52:47 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | David Bauer <mail@david-bauer.net> | 2020-10-26 02:35:55 +0100 |
| commit | c9e9b8c342d918cedfc4d2e1c2f7fd1fcaf0b56b (patch) | |
| tree | 20b6c08c7a9d1a25c2c44dec2aeef2d3edebfa4a /target/linux | |
| parent | c1130c7a6bd6cde9a9984da10de0edf47161df33 (diff) | |
| download | upstream-c9e9b8c342d918cedfc4d2e1c2f7fd1fcaf0b56b.tar.gz upstream-c9e9b8c342d918cedfc4d2e1c2f7fd1fcaf0b56b.tar.bz2 upstream-c9e9b8c342d918cedfc4d2e1c2f7fd1fcaf0b56b.zip | |
ath79: fix block protection clearing
The block protection bits of macronix do not match the implementation.
The chip has 3 BP bits. Bit 5 is actually the third BP but here the
5th bit is SR_TB. Therefore the patch adds SR_TB to the mask. In the
4.19er kernel the whole register was simply set to 0.
The wrong implementation did not remove the block protection. This led
to jffs2 errors in the form of:
"jffs2: Newly-erased block contained word 0x19852003 at offset 0x..."
This caused inconsistent memory and other errors.
Suggested-by: David Bauer <mail@david-bauer.net>
Signed-off-by: Nick Hainke <vincent@systemli.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'target/linux')
| -rw-r--r-- | target/linux/ath79/patches-5.4/450-fix-block-protection-clearing.patch | 28 |
1 files changed, 28 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/target/linux/ath79/patches-5.4/450-fix-block-protection-clearing.patch b/target/linux/ath79/patches-5.4/450-fix-block-protection-clearing.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..a7ed62302d --- /dev/null +++ b/target/linux/ath79/patches-5.4/450-fix-block-protection-clearing.patch @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +From: Nick Hainke <vincent@systemli.org> +Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2020 00:52:47 +0200 +Subject: [PATCH] ath79: fix block protection clearing + +The block protection bits of macronix do not match the implementation. +The chip has 3 BP bits. Bit 5 is actually the third BP but here the +5th bit is SR_TB. Therefore the patch adds SR_TB to the mask. In the +4.19er kernel the whole register was simply set to 0. + +The wrong implementation did not remove the block protection. This led +to jffs2 errors in the form of: +"jffs2: Newly-erased block contained word 0x19852003 at offset 0x..." +This caused inconsistent memory and other errors. + +Suggested-by: David Bauer <mail@david-bauer.net> +Signed-off-by: Nick Hainke <vincent@systemli.org> + +--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c ++++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c +@@ -1981,7 +1981,7 @@ static int sr2_bit7_quad_enable(struct s + static int spi_nor_clear_sr_bp(struct spi_nor *nor) + { + int ret; +- u8 mask = SR_BP2 | SR_BP1 | SR_BP0; ++ u8 mask = SR_TB | SR_BP2 | SR_BP1 | SR_BP0; + + ret = read_sr(nor); + if (ret < 0) { |