Re: [PATCH v5 39/50] mtd: nand: omap2: switch to mtd_ooblayout_ops

[Roger Quadros]

On 19/04/16 15:41, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:30:39 +0300
> Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 19/04/16 14:22, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> Hi Roger,
>>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 13:28:50 +0300
>>> Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> @@ -1921,6 +1927,9 @@ static int omap_nand_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>  		nand_chip->ecc.correct          = omap_correct_data;
>>>>>  		mtd_set_ooblayout(mtd, &omap_ooblayout_ops);
>>>>>  		oobbytes_per_step		= nand_chip->ecc.bytes;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +		if (nand_chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16)
>>>>> +			min_oobbytes		= 1;
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't this have been
>>>> 		if (!(nand_chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16)
>>>> 			min_oobbytes		= 1;
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  		break;
>>>>>  
>>>>>  	case OMAP_ECC_BCH4_CODE_HW_DETECTION_SW:
>>>>> @@ -2038,10 +2047,8 @@ static int omap_nand_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>  	}
>>>>>  
>>>>>  	/* check if NAND device's OOB is enough to store ECC signatures */
>>>>> -	min_oobbytes = (oobbytes_per_step *
>>>>> -			(mtd->writesize / nand_chip->ecc.size)) +
>>>>> -		       (nand_chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16 ?
>>>>> -			BADBLOCK_MARKER_LENGTH : 1);
>>>>> +	min_oobbytes += (oobbytes_per_step *
>>>>> +			 (mtd->writesize / nand_chip->ecc.size));
>>>>>  	if (mtd->oobsize < min_oobbytes) {
>>>>>  		dev_err(&info->pdev->dev,
>>>>>  			"not enough OOB bytes required = %d, available=%d\n",
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After the above changes BCH with HW ECC worked fine but BCH with SW ECC still failed.
>>>> I had to fix it up with the below patch. This is mainly because chip->ecc.steps wasn't
>>>> yet initialized before calling nand_bch_init().
>>>>
>>>> After the below patch it worked fine with bch4 (hw & sw), bch8 (hw & sw) and ham1.
>>>> I couldn't yet verify bch16 though.
>>>
>>
>> I just verified that bch16 works as well.
>>
>>> Thanks for the fix, but I'd prefer fixing the bug for all soft BCH
>>> users.
>>>
>>> Could you try this patch?
>>
>> I tried your patch and it worked fine.
> 
> Thanks, I'll provide a reworked nand/next branch soon.
> BTW, is there anything to fix in my merge commit (the commit merging
> your GPMC/OMAP changes in nand/next)?
> 

I just replied in the other thread that the conflict resolution is fine.

>> You will still need the below change to omap2.c
>>
>> --
>> cheers,
>> -roger
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c
>> index 0abfba6..33c8fde 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c
>> @@ -1715,7 +1715,7 @@ static int omap_sw_ooblayout_free(struct mtd_info *mtd, int section,
>>  	struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
>>  	int off = BADBLOCK_MARKER_LENGTH;
>>  
>> -	if (section)
>> +	if (section >= chip->ecc.steps)
>>  		return -ERANGE;
> 
> Sorry but I don't get why we need that one. Don't we have a single
> oobfree section starting at the end of the ECC sections?
> 
> 
You are right. Nothing needs to be changed there then. Thanks :)

cheers,
-roger