[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 09/12] mtd: rawnand: ingenic: Make use of ecc-engine property

Le ven. 15 mars 2019 à 9:40, Miquel Raynal <>
a écrit :
> Hi Paul,
> Paul Cercueil <> 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 <>
>> ---
>> 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

Second thing, everytime I reboot it fails to find the BBT. That's
the BBT marker is overwritten by the ECC data as they occupy the same
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?

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-15 15:38    [W:0.067 / U:0.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site