Re: [PATCH v5 09/12] mtd: rawnand: ingenic: Make use of ecc-engine property

[Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>]

Hi,

Le ven. 15 mars 2019 à 15:37, Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net> a 
écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> Le ven. 15 mars 2019 à 9:40, Miquel Raynal 
> <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> a écrit :
>> Hi Paul,
>> 
>> Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net> wrote on Wed, 13 Mar 2019 
>> \x7f23:22:56
>> +0100:
>> 
>>>  Use the 'ecc-engine' standard property instead of the custom
>>>  'ingenic,bch-controller' custom property, which is now deprecated.
>>> 
>>>  Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>
>>>  ---
>>> 
>>>  Notes:
>>>      v5: New patch
>>> 
>>>   drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>>  diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c 
>>> \x7f\x7fb/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c
>>>  index d7f3a8c3abea..30436ca6628a 100644
>>>  --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c
>>>  +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c
>>>  @@ -82,9 +82,9 @@ static struct ingenic_ecc 
>>> *ingenic_ecc_get(struct \x7f\x7fdevice_node *np)
>>> 
>>>   /**
>>>    * of_ingenic_ecc_get() - get the ECC controller from a DT node
>>>  - * @of_node: the node that contains a bch-controller property.
>>>  + * @of_node: the node that contains a ecc-engine property.
>> 
>> Would "contains an ecc-engine property" be better English?
>> 
>> I am not sure what is the rule when it comes to plain English with
>> variable names. However if you agree, no need to re-send the series, 
>> I
>> can fix it when applying.
> 
> Yes, that's better.
> 
>> BTW, I added hw ECC engines support to my generic ECC engine
>> implementation, but migrating the whole raw NAND subsystem (using I/O
>> requests like in the SPI-NAND core, adding prepare/finish_io_req 
>> \x7fhooks)
>> is going to be much more invasive than initially expected, so I am 
>> not
>> sure I will finish the migration any time soon.
> 
> Ok, I will follow the development then.
> 
>> Thanks,
>> Miquèl
> 
> One thing I notice with my patchset: it works perfectly on top of 
> 4.20,
> but on top of 5.0 I am unable to erase any eraseblock with 
> flash_erase.
> I get -EIO every time. I'm trying to debug it but didn't go very far,
> it looks like nand_status_op() gives me a status of 0xff. Do you know
> what could have changed between 4.20 and 5.0 that could trigger this 
> bug?

Nevermind. It works now.

> Second thing, everytime I reboot it fails to find the BBT. That's 
> because
> the BBT marker is overwritten by the ECC data as they occupy the same 
> area
> in the OOB space. Is there a way to move the BBT marker? Or should I 
> use
> NAND_BBT_NO_OOB then? Since the eraseblocks where the BBTs are located
> is used in my system partition, won't that conflict with the data?

Response to myself: It's possible to move the BBT marker. But in my 
case I
have to deal with three possible layouts, so it's simpler to just use
NAND_BBT_NO_OOB then. The BBT pages are marked so that they're not used
for data in the partitions.

I'll send a V6 then.

Thanks,
-Paul