From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH RFC] NAND: Improve read performance from Large Page NAND devices
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:43:39 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B1563DB.3010707@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B14FF53.5040208@gefanuc.com>
Nick Thompson wrote:
> On 01/12/09 10:13, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> On 01/12/09 00:55, Scott Wood wrote:
>
>>> This change will break drivers that support large page and use the
>>> default read_page functions, but do not implement cmd_ctrl (they replace
>>> cmdfunc instead). This includes fsl_elbc_nand, mxc_nand, and
>>> mpc5121_nfc. While I'd like to move them to implementing their own
>>> read_page-type functions instead of cmdfunc, is there any way to make it
>>> a smoother transition?
>> Yes, as it stands they would need modifying simultaneously and I have no
>> way to test such a change myself. The only required change in cmdfunc is
>> not to wait after a read0 request. You maybe in a better position to decide
>> if this has wider repercussions, but I will take a look at the above
>> drivers as well. [This is the main reason I made this an RFC].
>
> How about, if nand_wait_cache_load was replaceable (by a no-op in your case)
Or it could be off by default, and enabled only on those platforms where
it works and is beneficial.
> and the pre-fetch optimisation could be disabled by setting rstate to
> (INIT | NO_REQ) on every page read function call #ifdef
> CONFIG_NAND_NO_PREFETCH_READS?
>
> This leaves a problem with NAND_CMD_RNDOUT which is used by oob_first
> page reads but not supported by fsl_elbc_cmdfunc. I expect you don't use
> oob_first though..?
Right. It's also used on swecc, but we don't use that either.
> I believe this would allow you to restore the original sequences and keep you
> going until you can define your own page read functions.
>
> [BTW these changes applied quite cleanly to my Linux tree and give similar
> performance gains there as well. If we can reach agreement here, I will
> make patches for Linux as well. Unfortunately, my tree is 2.6.18 with
> backported NAND support from 2.6.32rc1, but I can deal with that.]
If possible, it would be nice to run these patches by the Linux list
now, so we get their feedback earlier rather than later.
-Scott
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-01 18:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-25 13:57 [U-Boot] [PATCH RFC] NAND: Improve read performance from Large Page NAND devices Nick Thompson
2009-12-01 0:55 ` Scott Wood
2009-12-01 10:13 ` Nick Thompson
2009-12-01 11:34 ` Nick Thompson
2009-12-01 18:43 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2009-12-01 18:38 ` Scott Wood
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-12-08 15:33 Nick Thompson
2009-12-08 22:06 ` Wolfgang Denk
2009-12-09 9:43 ` Nick Thompson
2009-12-09 11:02 ` Wolfgang Denk
2009-12-09 11:43 ` Nick Thompson
2010-01-16 1:51 ` Josh Gelinske
2010-01-18 12:48 ` Nick Thompson
2010-01-18 15:16 ` Josh Gelinske
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4B1563DB.3010707@freescale.com \
--to=scottwood@freescale.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox