Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Mar 2019 21:37:09 +0100 | From | Paul Cercueil <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 09/12] mtd: rawnand: ingenic: Make use of ecc-engine property |
| |
Hi,
Le ven. 15 mars 2019 à 15:37, Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net> a écrit : > Hi, > > Le ven. 15 mars 2019 à 9:40, Miquel Raynal > <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> a écrit : >> Hi Paul, >> >> Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net> wrote on Wed, 13 Mar 2019 >> 23:22:56 >> +0100: >> >>> Use the 'ecc-engine' standard property instead of the custom >>> 'ingenic,bch-controller' custom property, which is now deprecated. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net> >>> --- >>> >>> Notes: >>> v5: New patch >>> >>> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c | 13 ++++++++++--- >>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c >>> b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c >>> index d7f3a8c3abea..30436ca6628a 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c >>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c >>> @@ -82,9 +82,9 @@ static struct ingenic_ecc >>> *ingenic_ecc_get(struct device_node *np) >>> >>> /** >>> * of_ingenic_ecc_get() - get the ECC controller from a DT node >>> - * @of_node: the node that contains a bch-controller property. >>> + * @of_node: the node that contains a ecc-engine property. >> >> Would "contains an ecc-engine property" be better English? >> >> I am not sure what is the rule when it comes to plain English with >> variable names. However if you agree, no need to re-send the series, >> I >> can fix it when applying. > > Yes, that's better. > >> BTW, I added hw ECC engines support to my generic ECC engine >> implementation, but migrating the whole raw NAND subsystem (using I/O >> requests like in the SPI-NAND core, adding prepare/finish_io_req >> hooks) >> is going to be much more invasive than initially expected, so I am >> not >> sure I will finish the migration any time soon. > > Ok, I will follow the development then. > >> Thanks, >> Miquèl > > One thing I notice with my patchset: it works perfectly on top of > 4.20, > but on top of 5.0 I am unable to erase any eraseblock with > flash_erase. > I get -EIO every time. I'm trying to debug it but didn't go very far, > it looks like nand_status_op() gives me a status of 0xff. Do you know > what could have changed between 4.20 and 5.0 that could trigger this > bug?
Nevermind. It works now.
> Second thing, everytime I reboot it fails to find the BBT. That's > because > the BBT marker is overwritten by the ECC data as they occupy the same > area > in the OOB space. Is there a way to move the BBT marker? Or should I > use > NAND_BBT_NO_OOB then? Since the eraseblocks where the BBTs are located > is used in my system partition, won't that conflict with the data?
Response to myself: It's possible to move the BBT marker. But in my case I have to deal with three possible layouts, so it's simpler to just use NAND_BBT_NO_OOB then. The BBT pages are marked so that they're not used for data in the partitions.
I'll send a V6 then.
Thanks, -Paul
| |