Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Dec 2014 08:47:43 +0800 | From | Huang Shijie <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] mtd: nand: gpmi: add proper raw access support |
| |
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 09:58:58AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Hi Brian, > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 00:47:09 -0800 > Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 07:10:27PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > This series provides an implementation for raw accesses taking care of > > > hidding the specific layout used by the GPMI controller. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > Boris > > > > > > Changes since v5: > > > - rename gpmi_move_bits into gpmi_copy_bits > > > > > > Changes since v4: > > > - fixed a few corner cases in gpmi_move_bits (tested it with: > > > https://github.com/bbrezillon/gpmi-move-bits-test/blob/master/gpmi-move-bits-test.c) > > > - add documentation and comments for the new gpmi functions > > > > > > Changes since v3: > > > - add comments to the gpmi_move_bits function > > > - extend raw read/write documentation > > > - move last part of the raw_page_read function into a conditional block > > > > > > Changes since v2: > > > - fixed a bug in gpmi_move_bits > > > - add a raw_buffer field to be used when using raw access methods > > > (experienced memory corruptions when directly using page_buffer_virt > > > buffer) > > > - add raw OOB access functions > > > > Applied the series. Thanks! > > > > Out of curiosity, what tests does gpmi-nand.c now pass/fail? > > The oobtest is still failing. I started to debug it, but didn't have > enough time to make it work. > > The nandbiterrs test is working, though I didn't manage to make the > incremental test fail (writing the same pattern 10000 times without > erasing the block between each write does not generate any bit flips) on > my SLC NAND: MT29F2G08ABAEAH4. > Can someone with another SLC NAND chip try it ? > > > > > Also, is it time to yank / fixup some of these comments from > > gpmi-nand.c? > > I was asking myself the same question... > > > > > ... > > * FIXME: The following paragraph is incorrect, now that there exist > > * ecc.read_oob_raw and ecc.write_oob_raw functions. > > * > > * Since MTD assumes the OOB is not covered by ECC, there is no pair of > > * ECC-based/raw functions for reading or or writing the OOB. The fact that the > > * caller wants an ECC-based or raw view of the page is not propagated down to > > * this driver. > > */ > > I guess we can remove them. > Huang can you confirm that the raw access functions introduced in this > series are covering what's described here ? I think we can remove these comments now.
thanks Huang Shijie
| |