[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] mtd/nand : workaround for Freescale FCM to support large-page Nand chip
On 12/17/2011 08:35 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 15:30 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 12/12/2011 03:19 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 15:15 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>> NAND chips come from the factory with bad blocks marked at a certain
>>>> offset into each page. This offset is normally in the OOB area, but
>>>> since we change the layout from "4k data, 128 byte oob" to "2k data, 64
>>>> byte oob, 2k data, 64 byte oob" the marker is no longer in the oob. On
>>>> first use we need to migrate the markers so that they are still in the oob.
>>> Ah, I see, thanks. Are you planning to implement in-kernel migration or
>>> use a user-space tool?
>> That's the kind of answer I was hoping to get from Shuo. :-)
>> Most likely is a firmware-based tool, but I'd like there to be some way
>> for the tool to mark that this has happened, so that the Linux driver
>> can refuse to do non-raw accesses to a chip that isn't marked as having
>> been migrated (or at least yell loudly in the log).
>> Speaking of raw accesses, these are currently broken in the eLBC
>> driver... we need some way for the generic layer to tell us what kind of
>> access it is before the transaction starts, not once it wants to read
>> out the buffer (unless we add more hacks to delay the start of a read
>> transaction until first buffer access...). We'd be better off with a
>> high-level "read page/write page" function that does the whole thing
>> (not just buffer access, but command issuance as well).
> It looks like currently you can re-define chip->read_page, so I guess
> you should rework MTD and make chip->write_page re-definable?

Unless something has changed very recently, there is no chip->read_page
or chip->write_page. There is chip->ecc.read_page and
chip->ecc.write_page, but they are too low-level. What we'd need to
replace is a portion of nand_do_read_ops()/nand_do_write_ops().


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-19 19:41    [W:0.118 / U:6.432 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site