diff options
| author | Michael Walle <[email protected]> | 2020-12-03 17:29:56 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Vignesh Raghavendra <[email protected]> | 2020-12-07 22:57:30 +0530 |
| commit | a833383732116c2afe665520bbe6951999631ef1 (patch) | |
| tree | 9e547608543e304112d8868bbdc7a542e13e3345 /tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tcp_rtt.c | |
| parent | e6204d4620276398ed7317d64c369813a1f96615 (diff) | |
mtd: spi-nor: sst: remove global protection flag
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 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Vignesh Raghavendra <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Diffstat (limited to 'tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tcp_rtt.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions