lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 39/50] mtd: nand: omap2: switch to mtd_ooblayout_ops
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:30:39 +0300
Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> wrote:

> On 19/04/16 14:22, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Roger,
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 13:28:50 +0300
> > Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> @@ -1921,6 +1927,9 @@ static int omap_nand_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>> nand_chip->ecc.correct = omap_correct_data;
> >>> mtd_set_ooblayout(mtd, &omap_ooblayout_ops);
> >>> oobbytes_per_step = nand_chip->ecc.bytes;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (nand_chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16)
> >>> + min_oobbytes = 1;
> >>
> >> Shouldn't this have been
> >> if (!(nand_chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16)
> >> min_oobbytes = 1;
> >> ?
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> >>
> >>> break;
> >>>
> >>> case OMAP_ECC_BCH4_CODE_HW_DETECTION_SW:
> >>> @@ -2038,10 +2047,8 @@ static int omap_nand_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> /* check if NAND device's OOB is enough to store ECC signatures */
> >>> - min_oobbytes = (oobbytes_per_step *
> >>> - (mtd->writesize / nand_chip->ecc.size)) +
> >>> - (nand_chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16 ?
> >>> - BADBLOCK_MARKER_LENGTH : 1);
> >>> + min_oobbytes += (oobbytes_per_step *
> >>> + (mtd->writesize / nand_chip->ecc.size));
> >>> if (mtd->oobsize < min_oobbytes) {
> >>> dev_err(&info->pdev->dev,
> >>> "not enough OOB bytes required = %d, available=%d\n",
> >>>
> >>
> >> After the above changes BCH with HW ECC worked fine but BCH with SW ECC still failed.
> >> I had to fix it up with the below patch. This is mainly because chip->ecc.steps wasn't
> >> yet initialized before calling nand_bch_init().
> >>
> >> After the below patch it worked fine with bch4 (hw & sw), bch8 (hw & sw) and ham1.
> >> I couldn't yet verify bch16 though.
> >
>
> I just verified that bch16 works as well.
>
> > Thanks for the fix, but I'd prefer fixing the bug for all soft BCH
> > users.
> >
> > Could you try this patch?
>
> I tried your patch and it worked fine.

Thanks, I'll provide a reworked nand/next branch soon.
BTW, is there anything to fix in my merge commit (the commit merging
your GPMC/OMAP changes in nand/next)?

> You will still need the below change to omap2.c
>
> --
> cheers,
> -roger
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c
> index 0abfba6..33c8fde 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c
> @@ -1715,7 +1715,7 @@ static int omap_sw_ooblayout_free(struct mtd_info *mtd, int section,
> struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
> int off = BADBLOCK_MARKER_LENGTH;
>
> - if (section)
> + if (section >= chip->ecc.steps)
> return -ERANGE;

Sorry but I don't get why we need that one. Don't we have a single
oobfree section starting at the end of the ECC sections?


--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-19 15:01    [W:0.064 / U:15.424 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site