Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/5] mtd: rawnand: add NVIDIA Tegra NAND Flash controller driver

[Miquel Raynal]

Hi Stefan,

On Fri, 25 May 2018 00:56:23 +0200, Stefan Agner <stefan@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> On 24.05.2018 14:41, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2018 14:23:56 +0200
> > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> >> On Thu, 24 May 2018 13:09:53 +0200
> >> Stefan Agner <stefan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>  
> >> > On 24.05.2018 10:56, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
> >> > > On Thu, 24 May 2018 10:46:27 +0200
> >> > > Stefan Agner <stefan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > >  
> >> > >> Hi Boris,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thanks for the initial review! One small question below:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On 23.05.2018 16:18, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
> >> > >> > Hi Stefan,
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > On Tue, 22 May 2018 14:07:06 +0200
> >> > >> > Stefan Agner <stefan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:  
> >> > >> >> +
> >> > >> >> +struct tegra_nand {
> >> > >> >> +	void __iomem *regs;
> >> > >> >> +	struct clk *clk;
> >> > >> >> +	struct gpio_desc *wp_gpio;
> >> > >> >> +
> >> > >> >> +	struct nand_chip chip;
> >> > >> >> +	struct device *dev;
> >> > >> >> +
> >> > >> >> +	struct completion command_complete;
> >> > >> >> +	struct completion dma_complete;
> >> > >> >> +	bool last_read_error;
> >> > >> >> +
> >> > >> >> +	dma_addr_t data_dma;
> >> > >> >> +	void *data_buf;
> >> > >> >> +	dma_addr_t oob_dma;
> >> > >> >> +	void *oob_buf;
> >> > >> >> +
> >> > >> >> +	int cur_chip;
> >> > >> >> +};  
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > This struct should be split in 2 structures: one representing the NAND
> >> > >> > controller and one representing the NAND chip:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > struct tegra_nand_controller {
> >> > >> > 	struct nand_hw_control base;
> >> > >> > 	void __iomem *regs;
> >> > >> > 	struct clk *clk;
> >> > >> > 	struct device *dev;
> >> > >> > 	struct completion command_complete;
> >> > >> > 	struct completion dma_complete;
> >> > >> > 	bool last_read_error;
> >> > >> > 	int cur_chip;
> >> > >> > };
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > struct tegra_nand {
> >> > >> > 	struct nand_chip base;
> >> > >> > 	dma_addr_t data_dma;
> >> > >> > 	void *data_buf;
> >> > >> > 	dma_addr_t oob_dma;
> >> > >> > 	void *oob_buf;
> >> > >> > };  
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Is there a particular reason why you would leave DMA buffers in the chip
> >> > >> structure? It seems that is more a controller thing...  
> >> > >
> >> > > The size of those buffers is likely to be device dependent, so if you
> >> > > have several NANDs connected to the controller, you'll either have to
> >> > > have one buffer at the controller level which is max(all-chip-buf-size)
> >> > > or a buffer per device.
> >> > >
> >> > > Also, do you really need these buffers? The core already provide some
> >> > > which are suitable for DMA (chip->oob_poi and chip->data_buf).
> >> > >  
> >> >
> >> > Good question, I am not sure, that was existing code.
> >> >
> >> > Are you sure data_buf it is DMA capable?
> >> >
> >> > nand_scan_tail allocates with kmalloc:
> >> >
> >> > chip->data_buf = kmalloc(mtd->writesize + mtd->oobsize, GFP_KERNEL);  
> >>
> >> Yes, kmalloc() allocates DMA-able buffers, so those are DMA-safe.  
> > 
> > Hm, that's not exactly true. It depends on the dma_mask attached to the
> > device.  
> 
> It seems to work (tm).
> 
> I am not sure how to deal with the OOB buffer. I now use the given
> pointer also for oob (offset writesize). I think mtk_nand does the same
> thing.
> 
> dma_len = mtd->writesize + (oob_required ? mtd->oobsize : 0);        
> dma_addr = dma_map_single(ctrl->dev, buf, dma_len, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
> 
> ...
> 
> Is there a test which allows to test my (read|write)_page implementation
> with oob_required set?

I don't think there is a test in mtd-utils that does train both
implementations with oob_required set, but you should be able to test
it manually with nanddump/nandwrite --oob.

Thanks,
MiquÃl