From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.bootlin.com ([62.4.15.54]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1evSgZ-0003DS-9m for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:01:11 +0000 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 20:00:10 +0100 From: Boris Brezillon To: Miquel Raynal Cc: Richard Weinberger , David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , Marek Vasut , Cyrille Pitchen , jocelyncarroue@macronix.com, juliensu@mxic.com.tw, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Stefan Agner , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Ezequiel Garcia , Han Xu Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/14] mtd: rawnand: prepare the removal of ONFI/JEDEC parameter pages Message-ID: <20180312200010.49d828d6@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: <20180302142422.2543-10-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> References: <20180302142422.2543-1-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> <20180302142422.2543-10-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 15:24:17 +0100 Miquel Raynal wrote: > The NAND chip parameter page is statically allocated within the > nand_chip structure, which reserves a lot of space. Even not ONFI nor > JEDEC chips have it embedded. Also, only a few parameters are actually > read from the parameter page after the detection. > > To prepare to the removal of such huge structure, a small NAND parameter > structure is allocated statically and contains only very few members > that are generic to all chips and actually used elsewhere in the code. > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal > --- > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 32 +++++++++++++------------------- > include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h | 6 ++++++ > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c > index e5bcfbf7c7f6..30364f60dc4d 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c > @@ -1174,9 +1174,7 @@ int nand_get_features(struct nand_chip *chip, int addr, > { > struct mtd_info *mtd = nand_to_mtd(chip); > > - if (!chip->onfi_version || > - !(le16_to_cpu(chip->onfi_params.opt_cmd) > - & ONFI_OPT_CMD_SET_GET_FEATURES)) > + if (!chip->parameters.supports_set_get_features) > return -ENOTSUPP; > > return chip->get_features(mtd, chip, addr, subfeature_param); > @@ -1197,9 +1195,7 @@ int nand_set_features(struct nand_chip *chip, int addr, > { > struct mtd_info *mtd = nand_to_mtd(chip); > > - if (!chip->onfi_version || > - !(le16_to_cpu(chip->onfi_params.opt_cmd) > - & ONFI_OPT_CMD_SET_GET_FEATURES)) > + if (!chip->parameters.supports_set_get_features) > return -ENOTSUPP; > > return chip->set_features(mtd, chip, addr, subfeature_param); > @@ -5150,8 +5146,9 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct nand_chip *chip) > > sanitize_string(p->manufacturer, sizeof(p->manufacturer)); > sanitize_string(p->model, sizeof(p->model)); > + memcpy(chip->parameters.model, p->model, sizeof(p->model)); > if (!mtd->name) > - mtd->name = p->model; > + mtd->name = chip->parameters.model; > > mtd->writesize = le32_to_cpu(p->byte_per_page); > > @@ -5198,6 +5195,10 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct nand_chip *chip) > pr_warn("Could not retrieve ONFI ECC requirements\n"); > } > > + /* Save some parameters from the parameter page for future use */ > + if (le16_to_cpu(p->opt_cmd) & ONFI_OPT_CMD_SET_GET_FEATURES) > + chip->parameters.supports_set_get_features = true; > + > return 1; > } > > @@ -5250,8 +5251,9 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_jedec(struct nand_chip *chip) > > sanitize_string(p->manufacturer, sizeof(p->manufacturer)); > sanitize_string(p->model, sizeof(p->model)); > + memcpy(chip->parameters.model, p->model, sizeof(p->model)); It's safe as long as chip->parameters.model is bigger than p->model, which is the case here, but how about enforcing it, just in case someone decides to change the chip->parameters.model size. strncpy(chip->parameters.model, p->model, sizeof(chip->parameters.model) - 1; > if (!mtd->name) > - mtd->name = p->model; > + mtd->name = chip->parameters.model; > > mtd->writesize = le32_to_cpu(p->byte_per_page); > > @@ -5652,17 +5654,9 @@ static int nand_detect(struct nand_chip *chip, struct nand_flash_dev *type) > > pr_info("device found, Manufacturer ID: 0x%02x, Chip ID: 0x%02x\n", > maf_id, dev_id); > - > - if (chip->onfi_version) > - pr_info("%s %s\n", nand_manufacturer_name(manufacturer), > - chip->onfi_params.model); > - else if (chip->jedec_version) > - pr_info("%s %s\n", nand_manufacturer_name(manufacturer), > - chip->jedec_params.model); > - else > - pr_info("%s %s\n", nand_manufacturer_name(manufacturer), > - type->name); > - > + pr_info("%s %s\n", nand_manufacturer_name(manufacturer), > + (chip->onfi_version || chip->jedec_version) ? > + chip->parameters.model : type->name); > pr_info("%d MiB, %s, erase size: %d KiB, page size: %d, OOB size: %d\n", > (int)(chip->chipsize >> 20), nand_is_slc(chip) ? "SLC" : "MLC", > mtd->erasesize >> 10, mtd->writesize, mtd->oobsize); > diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h > index 3cc2a3435b20..1af0bff58ff4 100644 > --- a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h > +++ b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h > @@ -429,6 +429,11 @@ struct nand_jedec_params { > __le16 crc; > } __packed; > > +struct nand_parameters { > + char model[100]; > + bool supports_set_get_features; > +}; Can you document this structure with a kernel-doc header? > + > /* The maximum expected count of bytes in the NAND ID sequence */ > #define NAND_MAX_ID_LEN 8 > > @@ -1249,6 +1254,7 @@ struct nand_chip { > struct nand_onfi_params onfi_params; > struct nand_jedec_params jedec_params; > }; > + struct nand_parameters parameters; You forgot to update the kernel-doc header. > u16 max_bb_per_die; > u32 blocks_per_die; > -- Boris Brezillon, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com