tango_nand: is logic right in error cases? (was Re: fsl_ifc_nand: are blank pages protected by ECC?)

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1594 bytes --]

Hi!

> > Maybe I figured it out. Unfortunately, it is only compile tested. Does
> > it look approximately right?
> 
> Yep that's definitely better. Just one thing missing (see below),
> otherwise it looks good.

I'm copying from tango_nand, therefore I had to check tango_nand, too.

static int check_erased_page(struct nand_chip *chip, u8 *buf)
{
...
                res = nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(buf, pkt_size, ecc, ecc_size,
                                                  meta, meta_len,
                                                  chip->ecc.strength);
                if (res < 0)
                        mtd->ecc_stats.failed++;
                else
                        mtd->ecc_stats.corrected += res;

                bitflips = max(res, bitflips);
...
        return bitflips;
}

static int tango_read_page(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip,
                           u8 *buf, int oob_required, int page)
{
...
        res = decode_error_report(nfc);
        if (res < 0) {
                chip->ecc.read_oob_raw(mtd, chip, page);
                res = check_erased_page(chip, buf);
        }

        return res;
}


So nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk() returns < 0 (failed ECC), but then we
perform max() with bitflips (lets say 1, correctable ECC) and return
1? tango_read_page then returns 1 (correctable ECC) forgetting about
failed ECC...?

Best regards,
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]