Hi!

> [ Trimming CC list ]
> 
> On 22/04/2017 12:40, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> > Fix ecc.stats_corrected in empty flash case.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > This was suggested by Boris Brezillon in another context. Not tested;
> > I don't have the hardware.
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/tango_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/tango_nand.c
> > index 4a5e948..db4bff4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/tango_nand.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/tango_nand.c
> > @@ -193,6 +193,8 @@ static int check_erased_page(struct nand_chip *chip, u8 *buf)
> >  						  chip->ecc.strength);
> >  		if (res < 0)
> >  			mtd->ecc_stats.failed++;
> > +		else
> > +			mtd->ecc_stats.corrected += res;
> >  
> >  		bitflips = max(res, bitflips);
> >  		buf += pkt_size;
> > 
> 
> Hello Pavel,
> 
> You may have noticed that ecc_stats.corrected is not updated in
> decode_error_report() which is the main code path, i.e. the path
> that will succeed 99.99% of the time (HW read).
> 
> It turns out that the HW does not report the number of errors
> corrected in a page... Instead it reports two values:
> 1) U = number of errors corrected in the first packet/step
> 2) V = max number of errors corrected in other packets/steps
> 
> Thus, it is not possible to determine the actual number of errors
> corrected in a page (unless V is 0). Otherwise, we just have an
> interval; let n be the number of packets/steps:
> 
> U + V <= corrected errors count <= U + (n-1)*V
> 
> In my opinion, it is better to provide no information than to
> provide incorrect information. Therefore, I did not update
> ecc_stats.corrected in decode_error_report().
> 
> One could argue that updating ecc_stats.corrected in
> check_erased_page() sets the correct value, since the error
> counts are computed in software for each step. But updating
> the value here is IMO pointless if we can't do it in the main
> code path.

Aha, thanks for explanation... perhaps comment is worth adding? This
is certainly "interesting" property (people would conclude that
check_erased_page is buggy -- and it is buggy -- but it matches
behaviour of rest of the driver). Also... people do copy&paste in
kernel (I did :-) ) and this is quite a trap for them.

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