[U-Boot] [PATCH 4/4] ARM: at91: atmel_nand: add code to check the ONFI parameter ECC requirement

[Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>]

On 06/14/2013 06:20:42 AM, Josh Wu wrote:
> +static int pmecc_choose_ecc(struct atmel_nand_host *host,
> +		struct nand_chip *chip,
> +		int *cap, int *sector_size)
> +{
> +	/* Get ECC requirement from ONFI parameters */
> +	*cap = *sector_size = 0;
> +	if (chip->onfi_version) {
> +		if (!get_onfi_ecc_param(chip, cap, sector_size))
> +			MTDDEBUG(MTD_DEBUG_LEVEL1, "ONFI params,  
> minimum required ECC: %d bits in %d bytes\n",
> +				*cap, *sector_size);
> +		else
> +			printk(KERN_WARNING "NAND chip ECC reqirement  
> is in Extended ONFI parameter, we don't support yet.\n");

Both of these prints are dev_info in Linux.  While I tend to agree that  
the first print should be debug and the second an error (or at least a  
warning), it doesn't make much sense to use KERN_WARNING in U-Boot-only  
code (and even in Linux, explicit use of KERN_WARNING is deprecated in  
favor of pr_warn or dev_warn).

> +	} else {
> +		printk(KERN_WARNING "NAND chip is not ONFI compliant,  
> assume ecc_bits is 2 in 512 bytes");
> +	}
> +	if (*cap == 0 && *sector_size == 0) {
> +		/* Non-ONFI compliant or use extended ONFI parameters */
> +		*cap = 2;
> +		*sector_size = 512;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* If head file doesn't specify then use the one in ONFI  
> parameters */
> +	if (host->pmecc_corr_cap == 0) {
> +		/* use the most fitable ecc bits (the near bigger one )  
> */
> +		if (*cap <= 2)
> +			host->pmecc_corr_cap = 2;
> +		else if (*cap <= 4)
> +			host->pmecc_corr_cap = 4;
> +		else if (*cap < 8)
> +			host->pmecc_corr_cap = 8;
> +		else if (*cap < 12)
> +			host->pmecc_corr_cap = 12;
> +		else if (*cap < 24)
> +			host->pmecc_corr_cap = 24;
> +		else
> +			return -EINVAL;

Why are some of these "<=" and others "<"?

-Scott