From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mtd: nand: fix the written length when nand_write_skip_bad failed
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 12:22:25 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1362594145.5965.3@snotra> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANUnq3b64tRHTjNeobjDv3DbFZMKULO9b3=o_D3rs_ENYPrN8Q@mail.gmail.com> (from hotforest@gmail.com on Wed Mar 6 08:56:56 2013)
On 03/06/2013 08:56:56 AM, htbegin wrote:
> Hi, Scott
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
> wrote:
> > On 03/02/2013 03:01:10 AM, Tao Hou wrote:
> >>
> >> When the data has been partially written into the NAND Flash,
> >> returning the written length instead of 0. The written length
> >> may be useful when the upper level decides to continue the writing
> >> after skipping the block causing the write failure.
> >
> >
> > We already do that in some code paths.
> >
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Tao Hou <hotforest@gmail.com>
> >> Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
> >> Cc: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
> >> Cc: Lei Wen <leiwen@marvell.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c | 22 +++++++++++++++-------
> >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > Could you rebase this on top of this patch:
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/224842/
> Do you mean a V2 patch ?
Yes.
> > BTW, are you actually using WITH_YAFFS_OOB? I think there are some
> other
> > things wrong with it at the moment, as mentioned here:
> > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-March/148378.html
> No, I don't use it.
Changes to that code should be tested by someone...
> >> if (rval != 0) {
> >> printf("NAND write to offset %llx failed
> %d\n",
> >> offset, rval);
> >> - *length -= left_to_write;
> >> + *length -= left_to_write - written_size;
> >> return rval;
> >> }
> >
> >
> > ...but I don't see why this part is needed (or correct). Why
> doesn't
> > "*length -= left_to_write" already get you what you want?
> >
> > -Scott
> I just use "*length -= left_to_write - written_size" to tell the upper
> level that what
> had been actually happened. For the current block, "written_size" has
> been written to the NAND Flash yet, so left_to_write should be
> subtracted by "written_size".
But left_to_write isn't decreased until after this error return, so
that's already the case. Subtracting written_size from left_to_write
has the effect of increasing length by written_size, so the return
value will now look like the error page has been written.
-Scott
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-06 18:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-02 9:01 [U-Boot] [PATCH] mtd: nand: fix the written length when nand_write_skip_bad failed Tao Hou
2013-03-05 1:58 ` Scott Wood
2013-03-06 14:56 ` htbegin
2013-03-06 18:22 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2013-03-07 15:02 ` htbegin
2013-03-07 22:27 ` Scott Wood
2013-03-10 1:06 ` htbegin
2013-03-11 16:43 ` Scott Wood
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1362594145.5965.3@snotra \
--to=scottwood@freescale.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.