From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753929AbeE1HJj convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 28 May 2018 03:09:39 -0400
Received: from mail.bootlin.com ([62.4.15.54]:35075 "EHLO mail.bootlin.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753658AbeE1HJe (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 28 May 2018 03:09:34 -0400
Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 09:09:31 +0200
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Abhishek Sahu <absahu@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@wedev4u.fr>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>,
        Archit Taneja <architt@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/16] mtd: rawnand: qcom: minor code reorganization
 for bad block check
Message-ID: <20180528090931.4a208c62@xps13>
In-Reply-To: <d48035002fc00f142edc8ed80309f8a7@codeaurora.org>
References: <1527250904-21988-1-git-send-email-absahu@codeaurora.org>
        <1527250904-21988-14-git-send-email-absahu@codeaurora.org>
        <20180526104900.139dd19b@xps13>
        <d48035002fc00f142edc8ed80309f8a7@codeaurora.org>
Organization: Bootlin
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.0-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Abhishek,

On Mon, 28 May 2018 11:46:47 +0530, Abhishek Sahu
<absahu@codeaurora.org> wrote:

> On 2018-05-26 14:28, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Abhishek,  
> > > >> @@ -2141,12 +2127,10 @@ static int qcom_nandc_block_bad(struct >> mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs)  
> >>  		goto err;
> >>  	}  
> >> >> -	bbpos = mtd->writesize - host->cw_size * (ecc->steps - 1);  
> >> -
> >> -	bad = nandc->data_buffer[bbpos] != 0xff;
> >> +	bad = bbm_bytes_buf[0] != 0xff;
> > > BTW, as there are host->bbm_size bytes that can inform on the block  
> > state, don't we need to check all of them?
> >   
>   We are checking all of them.
>   host->bbm_size will be either 1 (for NAND_BUSWIDTH_8) or
>   2 (for NAND_BUSWIDTH_16).
> 
>   https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.17-rc7/source/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/qcom_nandc.c#L2347
> 
>   Thanks,
>   Abhishek
> 
> >> >>  	if (chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16)  
> >> -		bad = bad || (nandc->data_buffer[bbpos + 1] != 0xff);
> >> +		bad = bad || (bbm_bytes_buf[1] != 0xff);

As told in my previous reply, I missed the above line.

However, after checking the code of the core (nand_base.c) I wonder if
it is useful to check for the second byte.

And if you look at the core's implementation you'll see that the offset
is not always 0 in the OOB but maybe 5 for small page NAND chips.

Please have a look to the generic implementation and tell me why this
is really needed?

Thanks,
Miquèl