Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] mtd: rawnand: arasan: Add new Arasan NAND controller

[Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>]

Hi Boris,

Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com> wrote on Sun, 10 May
2020 10:41:45 +0200:

> On Sun, 10 May 2020 10:35:47 +0200
> Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Boris,
> > 
> > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com> wrote on Sun, 10 May
> > 2020 09:02:30 +0200:
> >   
> > > On Fri,  8 May 2020 19:13:38 +0200
> > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > >     
> > > > +static int anfc_len_to_steps(struct nand_chip *chip, unsigned int len)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	unsigned int steps = 1, pktsize = len;
> > > > +
> > > > +	while (pktsize > ANFC_MAX_PKT_SIZE) {
> > > > +		steps *= 2;
> > > > +		pktsize = DIV_ROUND_UP(len, steps);
> > > > +	}      
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Same here, you shouldn't have a round_up() but instead complain if
> > > "len != pkt_size * steps"
> > > 
> > > 	if (len % 4)
> > > 		return -ENOTSUPP;    
> > 
> > This is not possible, we need unaligned accesses for NAND detection.  
> 
> Duh, this really calls for a comment saying how wrong this is and how
> it should be fixed (discussions we had about data size constraints and
> the 'can-issue-more' flag on data_in/out instructions).

Agreed, I'll add a comment there :/

> 
> >   
> > > 
> > > 	if (len < ANFC_MAX_PKT_SIZE)
> > > 		return len;
> > > 
> > > 	for (steps = 2; steps < ANFC_MAX_STEPS; steps *= 2) {
> > > 		pkt_size = len / steps;
> > > 		if (pkt_size <= ANFC_MAX_PKT_SIZE)
> > > 			break;
> > > 	}
> > > 
> > > 	if (pkt_size * steps != len)
> > > 		return -ENOTSUPP;
> > > 
> > > 	return pkt_size;    
> > 
> > The rest looks fine, I will change it and also add these checks in  
> > ->exec_op() check_nonly path.    
>