From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D8D7C282D7 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 13:28:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1F52084A for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 13:28:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1548854933; bh=qavFVLHOnztYwoAr490K7QpDJg81d45YuBOQPHprG6k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=IzXocQG0zjg7VKP2Ez32jdS1ABCMSqXAr3PAXEfbJezCsD9HlPlF/8zpd9TBMXFk9 GalfRcdS263IZqYkZPQxgoBGKmBoGgomVurkk7nSu00wTZUTc2gv4wAU+pE8pOieNY /9lfJBL3rU83b5CBbgqvjdO+rK0H09maL2s9n5KM= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731003AbfA3N2v (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jan 2019 08:28:51 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:51786 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726233AbfA3N2v (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jan 2019 08:28:51 -0500 Received: from bbrezillon (91-160-177-164.subs.proxad.net [91.160.177.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF82920989; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 13:28:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1548854929; bh=qavFVLHOnztYwoAr490K7QpDJg81d45YuBOQPHprG6k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=udQRjtYqYAV3tiBLoPP6EeR8oRLUeKGt9IiKjpyIDwcCZkXEvDg5yzIJQhuXwJ05m R2QWjJ/P14lwKTeinjzUVce5lp3havNOTTOSW1jy+uUl3jti/Q5VvVHQI4xVGyaqhk RhEJnhFTTMANOINH4gdtgDb3PKmP/x2g6WHh5MoQ= Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:28:38 +0100 From: Boris Brezillon To: Schrempf Frieder Cc: "miquel.raynal@bootlin.com" , "richard@nod.at" , Kyungmin Park , David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , "Marek Vasut" , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] mtd: nand: Always store info about bad block markers in chip struct Message-ID: <20190130142838.5590f8b4@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: <20190130130111.32724-2-frieder.schrempf@kontron.de> References: <20190130130111.32724-1-frieder.schrempf@kontron.de> <20190130130111.32724-2-frieder.schrempf@kontron.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 13:01:44 +0000 Schrempf Frieder wrote: > From: Frieder Schrempf > > The information about where the manufacturer puts the bad block > markers inside the bad block and in the OOB data is stored in > different places. Let's move this information to nand_chip.options > and nand_chip.badblockpos. > > As this chip-specific information is not directly related to the > bad block table (BBT), we also rename the flags to NAND_BBM_*. > > Signed-off-by: Frieder Schrempf > --- > drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c | 2 +- > drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c | 2 +- > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_amd.c | 2 +- > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 12 ++++++------ > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_bbt.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_esmt.c | 2 +- > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_hynix.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c | 2 +- > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_micron.c | 2 +- > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_samsung.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_toshiba.c | 2 +- > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/sh_flctl.c | 4 ++-- > include/linux/mtd/bbm.h | 14 +------------- > include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h | 15 +++++++++++++++ Might be better to split that in 2 patches: - update onenand logic - update rawnand logic > 14 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c > index 4ca4b194e7d7..d6701b8f031f 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c > @@ -2458,7 +2458,7 @@ static int onenand_default_block_markbad(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs) > bbm->bbt[block >> 2] |= 0x01 << ((block & 0x03) << 1); > > /* We write two bytes, so we don't have to mess with 16-bit access */ > - ofs += mtd->oobsize + (bbm->badblockpos & ~0x01); > + ofs += mtd->oobsize + (this->badblockpos & ~0x01); Looks like the ->badblockpos field does not exist in struct onenand_chip, which means you didn't compile test this part ;-). > /* FIXME : What to do when marking SLC block in partition > * with MLC erasesize? For now, it is not advisable to > * create partitions containing both SLC and MLC regions. > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c > index dde20487937d..880b0abd36c8 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c > @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ static int onenand_scan_bbt(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_bbt_descr *bd) > return -ENOMEM; > > /* Set the bad block position */ > - bbm->badblockpos = ONENAND_BADBLOCK_POS; > + this->badblockpos = NAND_BBM_POS_ONENAND; This should be done in onenand_base.c not onenand_bbt.c. > > /* Set erase shift */ > bbm->bbt_erase_shift = this->erase_shift; ... > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_bbt.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_bbt.c > index 1b722fe9213c..862eaa3a0552 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_bbt.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_bbt.c > @@ -466,7 +466,7 @@ static int create_bbt(struct nand_chip *this, uint8_t *buf, > > pr_info("Scanning device for bad blocks\n"); > > - if (bd->options & NAND_BBT_SCAN2NDPAGE) > + if (this->options & NAND_BBM_SECONDPAGE) > numpages = 2; > else > numpages = 1; > @@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ static int create_bbt(struct nand_chip *this, uint8_t *buf, > from = (loff_t)startblock << this->bbt_erase_shift; > } > > - if (this->bbt_options & NAND_BBT_SCANLASTPAGE) > + if (this->bbt_options & NAND_BBM_LASTPAGE) You're not checking the right field here: if (this->options & NAND_BBM_LASTPAGE) > from += mtd->erasesize - (mtd->writesize * numpages); > > for (i = startblock; i < numblocks; i++) {