From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: Bastian Hecht <hechtb@googlemail.com>
Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] mtd: sh_flctl: Use user oob data in hardware ECC mode
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:33:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5280156.KyNjAmSTh8@avalon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABYn4sxbXiOkdPps59gkOj2MiYZXkeqgKTXt7i7HTz17VqWk0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Bastian,
On Monday 23 April 2012 11:36:29 Bastian Hecht wrote:
> 2012/4/23 Bastian Hecht <hechtb@googlemail.com>:
> > 2012/4/21 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>:
> >> On Friday 20 April 2012 11:13:49 Bastian Hecht wrote:
> >>> In hardware ecc mode, the flctl now writes and reads the oob data
> >>> provided by the user. Additionally the ECC is now returned in normal
> >>> page reads, not only when using the explicit NAND_CMD_READOOB command.
> >>
> >> For my information again, what's the purpose of returning OOB data if the
> >> caller hasn't requested it ? What are those data then used for ?
> >
> > There is an active discussion going on whether to pass a boolean to
> > nand_{read,write} that indicates if we need oob data or not. I assume
> > this to make it into the mainline then I can adapt this to the flctl
> > driver. The data can be used by file systems or bad block marking or
> > any other organizational needs like wear leveling and so on.
>
> I'm unsure if I missed your point here - we just don't know if we need
> it or not. The discussion I mentioned primarily takes place here at
> the mtd mailing list:
>
> [PATCH 1/2] mtd: nand: add OOB argument to NAND {read,write}_page interfaces
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2012-April/040714.html
>
> Now I'm confused as well whether I should skip the read oob part of the
> patch. I'll skip the read part of the patch until a decision is made, I
> think.
My point was just that it was pointless to read/write OOB data if the caller
doesn't use them. It's an optimization: reading OOB data won't hurt regardless
of what the caller does with it, but it will use CPU time and power for no
reason. Adding an OOB argument to the {read,write}_page function would make
this explicit.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: Bastian Hecht <hechtb@googlemail.com>
Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] mtd: sh_flctl: Use user oob data in hardware ECC mode
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:33:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5280156.KyNjAmSTh8@avalon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABYn4sxbXiOkdPps59gkOj2MiYZXkeqgKTXt7i7HTz17VqWk0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Bastian,
On Monday 23 April 2012 11:36:29 Bastian Hecht wrote:
> 2012/4/23 Bastian Hecht <hechtb@googlemail.com>:
> > 2012/4/21 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>:
> >> On Friday 20 April 2012 11:13:49 Bastian Hecht wrote:
> >>> In hardware ecc mode, the flctl now writes and reads the oob data
> >>> provided by the user. Additionally the ECC is now returned in normal
> >>> page reads, not only when using the explicit NAND_CMD_READOOB command.
> >>
> >> For my information again, what's the purpose of returning OOB data if the
> >> caller hasn't requested it ? What are those data then used for ?
> >
> > There is an active discussion going on whether to pass a boolean to
> > nand_{read,write} that indicates if we need oob data or not. I assume
> > this to make it into the mainline then I can adapt this to the flctl
> > driver. The data can be used by file systems or bad block marking or
> > any other organizational needs like wear leveling and so on.
>
> I'm unsure if I missed your point here - we just don't know if we need
> it or not. The discussion I mentioned primarily takes place here at
> the mtd mailing list:
>
> [PATCH 1/2] mtd: nand: add OOB argument to NAND {read,write}_page interfaces
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2012-April/040714.html
>
> Now I'm confused as well whether I should skip the read oob part of the
> patch. I'll skip the read part of the patch until a decision is made, I
> think.
My point was just that it was pointless to read/write OOB data if the caller
doesn't use them. It's an optimization: reading OOB data won't hurt regardless
of what the caller does with it, but it will use CPU time and power for no
reason. Adding an OOB argument to the {read,write}_page function would make
this explicit.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-24 9:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-20 9:13 [PATCH 0/9] sh_flctl hardware ECC mode cleanup Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` [PATCH 1/9] mtd: sh_flctl: Add support for error IRQ Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-21 14:29 ` Laurent Pinchart
2012-04-21 14:29 ` Laurent Pinchart
2012-04-23 8:41 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-23 8:41 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` [PATCH 2/9] ARM: sh-mobile: mackerel: Add error IRQ resource Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-21 14:30 ` Laurent Pinchart
2012-04-21 14:30 ` Laurent Pinchart
2012-04-23 8:43 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-23 8:43 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` [PATCH 3/9] mtd: sh_flctl: Use different OOB layout Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-21 14:41 ` Laurent Pinchart
2012-04-21 14:41 ` Laurent Pinchart
2012-04-23 8:51 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-23 8:51 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` [PATCH 4/9] mtd: sh_flctl: Fix hardware ECC behaviour Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` [PATCH 5/9] mtd: sh_flctl: Simplify the hardware ecc page read/write Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` [PATCH 6/9] mtd: sh_flctl: Group sector accesses into a single transfer Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` [PATCH 7/9] mtd: sh_flctl: Restructure the hardware ECC handling Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` [PATCH 8/9] mtd: sh_flctl: Use user oob data in hardware ECC mode Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-21 15:00 ` Laurent Pinchart
2012-04-21 15:00 ` Laurent Pinchart
2012-04-23 9:05 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-23 9:05 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-23 9:36 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-23 9:36 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-24 9:33 ` Laurent Pinchart [this message]
2012-04-24 9:33 ` Laurent Pinchart
2012-04-25 4:01 ` Brian Norris
2012-04-25 4:01 ` Brian Norris
2012-04-25 13:26 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-25 13:26 ` Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` [PATCH 9/9] ARM: sh-mobile: mackerel: Use hardware error correction Bastian Hecht
2012-04-20 9:13 ` Bastian Hecht
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=5280156.KyNjAmSTh8@avalon \
--to=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=hechtb@googlemail.com \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
/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.