Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] nand: cavium: Nand flash controller for Cavium ARM64 SOCs

Boris Brezillon
2017-04-30T13:01:25Z

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:26:23 +0200
Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 03:59:33PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:02:56 +0200
> > Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > +static void cvm_nand_write_buf(struct mtd_info *mtd, const u8 *buf, int len)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct nand_chip *nand = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
> > > > > + struct cvm_nfc *tn = to_cvm_nfc(nand->controller);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + memcpy(tn->buf.dmabuf + tn->buf.data_len, buf, len);
> > > > > + tn->buf.data_len += len;
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > It seems that cvm_nand_read/write_byte/buf() are returning data that
> > > > have already been retrieved (problably during the ->cmdfunc() phase).
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > That's not how it's supposed to work. The core is expecting the data
> > > > transfer to be done when ->read/write_buf() is called. Doing that in
> > > > ->cmdfunc() is risky, because when you're there you have no clue about
> > > > how much bytes the core expect.
> > >
> > > It seems to work fine, I've never seen the core trying to do more bytes in
> > > the read/write_buf() then requested in ->cmdfunc().
> >
> > We already had problems in the past: when the core evolves to handle
> > new NAND chips it might decide to read a bit more data than it used to
> > be, and assuming that your driver will always take the right decision
> > based on the information passed to ->cmdfunc() is a bit risky.
> >
> > I still have the plan to provide a better interface allowing drivers to
> > execute the whole operation sequence (cmd+addr+data cycles), but it's
> > not there yet (see [1] for more details).
> > If you're okay to volunteer, I can help you with design this new hook
> > which should probably make your life easier for the rest of the driver
> > code (and also help me improve existing drivers ;-)).
>
> Hi Boris,
>
> sorry for the long delay.

No problem. Actually, I've been busy too, and I didn't do the advanced
review I promised, so we're even ;-).

> In the meantime I've looked at your slides and
> I can agree with many points. I'd like to go that way and hopefully I
> can help with my limited understanding of the nand layer.

That's great news!

>
> How far are you with the new interface, can you share some code?

I started to rework the NAND framework a while ago [1], but never had
time to finish it. I think I was too ambitious, so let's try to be
pragmatic this time, and focus on one problem at a time.

Your problem here is the separation of the CMD/ADDR cycles (done in
->cmdfunc() and/or cmd_ctrl()) and the DATA cycles (done in
->read/write_buf/byte/word()), which complexifies the driver logic.

What you should look at is defining a proper nand_operation object
(here's my initial definition [2], but you may want/need to remove some
fields or add new ones) and add a new ->exec_op() hook to nand_chip
taking a nand_operation struct (+ a pointer to the nand_chip, of
course).

Once you have that, you should patch all accesses from the core to use
the new ->exec_op() interface instead of ->cmdfunc() +
->read/write_xx(). Of course, that means providing a compatibility layer
for all drivers still implementing ->cmdfunc(), which is probably the
trickiest part of the job.

You'll have to rework the nand_do_read/write_ops() functions to
prevent the separation of the ->cmdfunc() call (done in
nand_do_read/write_ops() function) from the data transfer (done in
chip->ecc.read/write_page_xxx()).

I'll try to come up with an initial/ugly patch to show you the
direction, and I'll let you cleanup/massage the implementation ;-).

[1]https://github.com/bbrezillon/linux-sunxi/commits/nand-core-rework-v2
[2]https://github.com/bbrezillon/linux-sunxi/blob/3bd660ef57eb87408e61e8b8d6bb19043de1bfab/include/linux/mtd/nand2.h#L41