[PATCH v2 1/2] mtd: nand: pxa3xx: Fix PIO FIFO draining

[computersforpeace@gmail.com (Brian Norris)]

On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 17:08:35 -0800
> Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 11:10:28AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:56:03 +0100
> > > Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > > +			/*
> > > > +			 * According to the datasheet, when reading
> > > > +			 * from NDDB with BCH enabled, after each 32
> > > > +			 * bits reads, we have to make sure that the
> > > > +			 * NDSR.RDDREQ bit is set
> > > > +			 */
> > > 
> > > I know the datasheet says this bit should be checked after each
> > > transfer, but I wonder if we shouldn't check it before reading the data.
> > > What happens if you drain all the data available in the FIFO ? Is the
> > > controller still setting the RDDREQ bit ?
> > > 
> > > Moreover, the datasheet says this RDDREQ bit should be checked after
> > > each 32 bytes (not 32 bits) transfer.
> > > Testing it after each readl call shouldn't hurt though.
> > 
> > Seems like that could quite possibly kill performance unnecessarily,
> > couldn't it? But then, PIO is probably not that fast in the first
> > place...
> 
> Absolutety, my point was, it shouldn't hurt from a functional POV, but
> yes it will definitely impact performances.

OK.

> But that's not the first thing I would rework of if you're concerned
> about performances: when doing PIO read/write, the page read/write
> operations (I mean the part reading the internal fifo) are all done in
> interrupt context (called from pxa3xx_nand_irq), and doing this will
> prevent any other interrupt from taking place while you are
> draining/filling the FIFO :-(.

...which reminds me; the jiffies-based timeout in this patch isn't going
to work in interrupt context. So it needs to be replaced either with a
tight udelay() loop, or it needs to be moved out of the ISR.

> An alternative would be to move this part into the read/write_buf
> functions, but that's a lot of work...

Yeah, that probably would be preferable, but I suppose it's not urgent
either.

Brian