From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roger Quadros Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 39/50] mtd: nand: omap2: switch to mtd_ooblayout_ops Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:49:42 +0300 Message-ID: <57162966.9080205@ti.com> References: <1459354505-32551-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <1459354505-32551-40-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <5714F011.5080409@ti.com> <20160418170518.363f732d@bbrezillon> <57160862.90603@ti.com> <20160419132206.5d909f7e@bbrezillon> <571624EF.9060707@ti.com> <20160419144152.30a4027d@bbrezillon> Reply-To: rogerq-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Sender: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org In-Reply-To: <20160419144152.30a4027d@bbrezillon> List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Boris Brezillon Cc: David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , linux-mtd-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Richard Weinberger , linux-mips-6z/3iImG2C8G8FEW9MqTrA@public.gmane.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski , Harvey Hunt , Nicolas Ferre , Stefan Agner , linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org, Alexandre Belloni , punnaiah choudary kalluri , Robert Jarzmik , devel-gWbeCf7V1WCQmaza687I9mD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, Archit Taneja , linux-samsung-soc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Kamal Dasu , Josh Wu , Chen-Yu Tsai , Kukjin Kim , bcm-kerne List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 19/04/16 15:41, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:30:39 +0300 > Roger Quadros wrote: > >> On 19/04/16 14:22, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> Hi Roger, >>> >>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 13:28:50 +0300 >>> Roger Quadros wrote: >>> >>>>> @@ -1921,6 +1927,9 @@ static int omap_nand_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>> nand_chip->ecc.correct = omap_correct_data; >>>>> mtd_set_ooblayout(mtd, &omap_ooblayout_ops); >>>>> oobbytes_per_step = nand_chip->ecc.bytes; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (nand_chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16) >>>>> + min_oobbytes = 1; >>>> >>>> Shouldn't this have been >>>> if (!(nand_chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16) >>>> min_oobbytes = 1; >>>> ? >>> >>> Yep. >>> >>>> >>>>> break; >>>>> >>>>> case OMAP_ECC_BCH4_CODE_HW_DETECTION_SW: >>>>> @@ -2038,10 +2047,8 @@ static int omap_nand_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> /* check if NAND device's OOB is enough to store ECC signatures */ >>>>> - min_oobbytes = (oobbytes_per_step * >>>>> - (mtd->writesize / nand_chip->ecc.size)) + >>>>> - (nand_chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16 ? >>>>> - BADBLOCK_MARKER_LENGTH : 1); >>>>> + min_oobbytes += (oobbytes_per_step * >>>>> + (mtd->writesize / nand_chip->ecc.size)); >>>>> if (mtd->oobsize < min_oobbytes) { >>>>> dev_err(&info->pdev->dev, >>>>> "not enough OOB bytes required = %d, available=%d\n", >>>>> >>>> >>>> After the above changes BCH with HW ECC worked fine but BCH with SW ECC still failed. >>>> I had to fix it up with the below patch. This is mainly because chip->ecc.steps wasn't >>>> yet initialized before calling nand_bch_init(). >>>> >>>> After the below patch it worked fine with bch4 (hw & sw), bch8 (hw & sw) and ham1. >>>> I couldn't yet verify bch16 though. >>> >> >> I just verified that bch16 works as well. >> >>> Thanks for the fix, but I'd prefer fixing the bug for all soft BCH >>> users. >>> >>> Could you try this patch? >> >> I tried your patch and it worked fine. > > Thanks, I'll provide a reworked nand/next branch soon. > BTW, is there anything to fix in my merge commit (the commit merging > your GPMC/OMAP changes in nand/next)? > I just replied in the other thread that the conflict resolution is fine. >> You will still need the below change to omap2.c >> >> -- >> cheers, >> -roger >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c >> index 0abfba6..33c8fde 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c >> @@ -1715,7 +1715,7 @@ static int omap_sw_ooblayout_free(struct mtd_info *mtd, int section, >> struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd); >> int off = BADBLOCK_MARKER_LENGTH; >> >> - if (section) >> + if (section >= chip->ecc.steps) >> return -ERANGE; > > Sorry but I don't get why we need that one. Don't we have a single > oobfree section starting at the end of the ECC sections? > > You are right. Nothing needs to be changed there then. Thanks :) cheers, -roger