Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:58:58 +0100 | From | Boris Brezillon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] mtd: nand: gpmi: add proper raw access support |
| |
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 ?
Regards,
Boris
-- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
| |