From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: plaes@plaes.org (Priit Laes)
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 08:43:05 +0200
Subject: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH 01/23] mtd: kill the ecclayout->oobavail
 field
In-Reply-To: <1449527178-5930-2-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
References: <1449527178-5930-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
 <1449527178-5930-2-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Message-ID: <1449556985.25438.8.camel@plaes.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 23:25 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> ecclayout->oobavail is just redundant with the mtd->oobavail field.
> Moreover, it prevents static const definition of ecc layouts since
> the
> NAND framework is calculating this value based on the ecclayout-
> >oobfree
> field.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> ---
> ?drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c???????????????????|??5 ++-
> ?drivers/mtd/mtdswap.c?????????????????????????| 16 ++++-----
> ?drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c??????????|??3 --
> ?drivers/mtd/nand/docg4.c??????????????????????|??1 -
> ?drivers/mtd/nand/hisi504_nand.c???????????????|??1 -
> ?drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c??????????????????| 12 +++----
> ?drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c????????????| 16 ++++-----
> ?drivers/mtd/tests/oobtest.c???????????????????| 49 +++++++++++++--
> ------------
> ?drivers/staging/mt29f_spinand/mt29f_spinand.c |??1 -
> ?fs/jffs2/wbuf.c???????????????????????????????|??6 ++--
> ?include/linux/mtd/mtd.h???????????????????????|??1 -
> ?11 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
> 
[..]
> ?
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> b/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> index 35d78f7..a906ec2 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> @@ -845,9 +845,6 @@ static struct nand_ecclayout *brcmnand_create_layout(int ecc_level,
> ?			break;
> ?	}
> ?out:
> -	/* Sum available OOB */
> -	for (i = 0; i < MTD_MAX_OOBFREE_ENTRIES_LARGE; i++)
> -		layout->oobavail += layout->oobfree[i].length;
> ?	return layout;
> ?}

You can get rid of the 'out' label and replace the single goto in this
function with 'return layout'.

[...]
> ?
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> index 0748a13..1107f5c1 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> @@ -2037,7 +2037,7 @@ static int nand_do_read_oob(struct mtd_info
> *mtd, loff_t from,
> ?	stats = mtd->ecc_stats;
> ?
> ?	if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
> -		len = chip->ecc.layout->oobavail;
> +		len = mtd->oobavail;
> ?	else
> ?		len = mtd->oobsize;
> ?
> @@ -2728,7 +2728,7 @@ static int nand_do_write_oob(struct mtd_info
> *mtd, loff_t to,
> ?			?__func__, (unsigned int)to, (int)ops-
> >ooblen);
> ?
> ?	if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
> -		len = chip->ecc.layout->oobavail;
> +		len = mtd->oobavail;
> ?	else
> ?		len = mtd->oobsize;
> ?
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c
> b/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c
> index 43b3392..d70bbfd 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c
> @@ -1125,7 +1125,7 @@ static int onenand_mlc_read_ops_nolock(struct
> mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from,
> ?			(int)len);
> ?
> ?	if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
> -		oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail;
> +		oobsize = mtd->oobavail;
> ?	else
> ?		oobsize = mtd->oobsize;
> ?
> @@ -1230,7 +1230,7 @@ static int onenand_read_ops_nolock(struct
> mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from,
> ?			(int)len);
> ?
> ?	if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
> -		oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail;
> +		oobsize = mtd->oobavail;
> ?	else
> ?		oobsize = mtd->oobsize;
> ?
> @@ -1365,7 +1365,7 @@ static int onenand_read_oob_nolock(struct
> mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from,
> ?	ops->oobretlen = 0;
> ?
> ?	if (mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
> -		oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail;
> +		oobsize = mtd->oobavail;
> ?	else
> ?		oobsize = mtd->oobsize;
> ?
> @@ -1887,7 +1887,7 @@ static int onenand_write_ops_nolock(struct
> mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to,
> ?		return 0;
> ?
> ?	if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
> -		oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail;
> +		oobsize = mtd->oobavail;
> ?	else
> ?		oobsize = mtd->oobsize;
> ?
> @@ -2063,7 +2063,7 @@ static int onenand_write_oob_nolock(struct
> mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to,
> ?	ops->oobretlen = 0;
> ?
> ?	if (mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
> -		oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail;
> +		oobsize = mtd->oobavail;
> ?	else
> ?		oobsize = mtd->oobsize;

This identical construction seems to occur multiple times in multiple
files. Would it make sense to create a macro for it?


P?ikest,
Priit Laes :)