From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from top.free-electrons.com ([176.31.233.9] helo=mail.free-electrons.com) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1VmN1h-0006fV-Ig for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:18:30 +0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:18:07 -0300 From: Ezequiel Garcia To: Pekon Gupta Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: auto-detection of NAND bus-width from ONFI param or nand_id[] Message-ID: <20131129121806.GA2815@localhost> References: <1385382728-7913-1-git-send-email-pekon@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1385382728-7913-1-git-send-email-pekon@ti.com> Cc: Brian Norris , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, balbi@ti.com, Artem Bityutskiy List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Pekon, On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 06:02:08PM +0530, Pekon Gupta wrote: > This patch is alternative implementation for following commit which introduced > NAND_BUSWIDTH_AUTO for detection of bus-width during device probe > commit 64b37b2a63eb2f80b65c7185f0013f8ffc637ae3 > Author: Matthieu CASTET > AuthorDate: 2012-11-06 > > As NAND device is identified only during nand_scan_ident(), so this patch > assumes that NAND driver may un-initialized or partially congigured while > calling nand_scan_ident(). Hence, this patch does following: > > (1) Temporarily configures 'bus-width=x8' mode before reading ONFI parameters, > (as required by ONFI spec Refer[*]), and then reverts to original bus-width. > This allows nand_flash_detect_onfi() to read ONFI paramers page even if > bus-width was un-initialized or incorrectly configured. > > (2) reconfigures driver with correct bus-width determined by: > - either by reading ONFI param OR > - as found in nand_flash_id[] table > So, any driver-specific callback overrides should be done post nand_scan_ident. > > This patch removes any dependency on either 'DT binding' or 'platform data' to > for determining NAND device bus-width. > > [*] Reference: ONFI spec version 3.1 (section 3.5.3. Target Initialization) > "The Read ID and Read Parameter Page commands only use the lower 8-bits > of the data bus. The host shall not issue commands that use a word > data width on x16 devices until the host determines the device supports > a 16-bit data bus width in the parameter page." > > > Signed-off-by: Pekon Gupta > --- > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++------------------------- > include/linux/mtd/nand.h | 7 ------- > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > index bd39f7b..3d581a4 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > @@ -2942,14 +2942,9 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip, > chip->read_byte(mtd) != 'F' || chip->read_byte(mtd) != 'I') > return 0; > > - /* > - * ONFI must be probed in 8-bit mode or with NAND_BUSWIDTH_AUTO, not > - * with NAND_BUSWIDTH_16 > - */ > - if (chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16) { > - pr_err("ONFI cannot be probed in 16-bit mode; aborting\n"); > - return 0; > - } > + /* ONFI must be probed in 8-bit mode only, so switch to x8 mode */ > + if (chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16) > + nand_set_defaults(chip, 0); > > chip->cmdfunc(mtd, NAND_CMD_PARAM, 0, -1); > for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) { > @@ -2962,7 +2957,7 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip, > > if (i == 3) { > pr_err("Could not find valid ONFI parameter page; aborting\n"); > - return 0; > + goto return_error; > } > > /* Check version */ > @@ -2980,7 +2975,7 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip, > > if (!chip->onfi_version) { > pr_info("%s: unsupported ONFI version: %d\n", __func__, val); > - return 0; > + goto return_error; > } > > sanitize_string(p->manufacturer, sizeof(p->manufacturer)); > @@ -3033,6 +3028,12 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip, > } > > return 1; > + > +return_error: > + /* revert to original bus-width */ > + nand_set_defaults(chip, chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16); > + return 0; > + > } > > /* > @@ -3431,22 +3432,14 @@ ident_done: > break; > } > > - if (chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_AUTO) { > - WARN_ON(chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16); > - chip->options |= busw; > + > + /* re-configure driver is bus-width was incorrectly configured */ > + if (busw != (chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16)) { > + pr_warn("reconfiguring NAND bus width to %d instead %d bit\n", > + busw ? 16 : 8, > + (chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16) ? 16 : 8); > + chip->options = (chip->options & ~NAND_BUSWIDTH_16) | busw; > nand_set_defaults(chip, busw); > - } else if (busw != (chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16)) { > - /* > - * Check, if buswidth is correct. Hardware drivers should set > - * chip correct! > - */ > - pr_info("NAND device: Manufacturer ID:" > - " 0x%02x, Chip ID: 0x%02x (%s %s)\n", *maf_id, > - *dev_id, nand_manuf_ids[maf_idx].name, mtd->name); > - pr_warn("NAND bus width %d instead %d bit\n", > - (chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16) ? 16 : 8, > - busw ? 16 : 8); > - return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > } > > nand_decode_bbm_options(mtd, chip, id_data); > diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/nand.h b/include/linux/mtd/nand.h > index 9e6c8f9..d5cc642 100644 > --- a/include/linux/mtd/nand.h > +++ b/include/linux/mtd/nand.h > @@ -183,13 +183,6 @@ typedef enum { > #define NAND_OWN_BUFFERS 0x00020000 > /* Chip may not exist, so silence any errors in scan */ > #define NAND_SCAN_SILENT_NODEV 0x00040000 > -/* > - * Autodetect nand buswidth with readid/onfi. > - * This suppose the driver will configure the hardware in 8 bits mode > - * when calling nand_scan_ident, and update its configuration > - * before calling nand_scan_tail. > - */ > -#define NAND_BUSWIDTH_AUTO 0x00080000 > > /* Options set by nand scan */ > /* Nand scan has allocated controller struct */ > -- > 1.8.1 > I'm not really convinced about the path you're taking here, as I think the solution should be a bit simpler. I've prepared an RFC with my proposal, based on this same patch. Let me finish some testings and post it (I took the liberty of adding your SOB to it). -- Ezequiel García, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering http://free-electrons.com