lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-18 21:38    [W:0.056 / U:1.684 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site