From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-fx0-f214.google.com ([209.85.220.214]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Njfp6-00022v-PP for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:28:17 +0000 Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so5275300fxm.2 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:28:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/15] MTD: nand: make reads using MTD_OOB_RAW affect only ECC validation From: Maxim Levitsky To: Thomas Gleixner In-Reply-To: References: <1266863982-5258-1-git-send-email-maximlevitsky@gmail.com> <1266863982-5258-11-git-send-email-maximlevitsky@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:28:07 +0200 Message-ID: <1266874087.4971.4.camel@maxim-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Dubov , Vitaly Wool , joern , linux-kernel , stanley.miao@windriver.com, linux-mtd , David Woodhouse List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 22:20 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > This changes the behavier of MTD_OOB_RAW. It used to read both OOB and data > > to the data buffer, however you would still need to specify the dummy oob buffer. > > > > This is only used in one place, but makes it hard to read data+oob without ECC > > test, thus I removed that behavier, and fixed the user. > > > > Now MTD_OOB_RAW behaves just like MTD_OOB_PLACE, but doesn't do ECC validation > > Is this tested against existing user space tools like nanddump ? Can I > still get the raw data from flash ? Thats the point. Userspace doesn't/can't use that mode. It is not exposed through mtdchar. Userspace reads the page, and then reads the oob. It does use MTD_OOB_RAW, but without data buffer, and this path I don't change. The only user of this, is the nand itself, when it reads bad block table. I confess that I didn't run test that I ported this code correctly. But I did logically verified many times that the new code works just like old one. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky