Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] mtd: onenand: Store bad block marker position in chip struct

[Miquel Raynal]

Hi Frieder,

Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Mon, 18 Feb
2019 10:42:41 +0000:

> From: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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 the chip struct,
> as we did it for rawnand.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c | 5 ++++-
>  drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c  | 3 ---
>  include/linux/mtd/onenand.h             | 3 +++
>  3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c
> index 4ca4b194e7d7..f41d76248550 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);
>  	/* 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.
> @@ -3967,6 +3967,9 @@ int onenand_scan(struct mtd_info *mtd, int maxchips)
>  	if (!(this->options & ONENAND_SKIP_INITIAL_UNLOCKING))
>  		this->unlock_all(mtd);
>  
> +	/* Set the bad block marker position */
> +	this->badblockpos = ONENAND_BADBLOCK_POS;
> +
>  	ret = this->scan_bbt(mtd);
>  	if ((!FLEXONENAND(this)) || ret)
>  		return ret;
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c
> index dde20487937d..57c31c81be18 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c
> @@ -190,9 +190,6 @@ static int onenand_scan_bbt(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_bbt_descr *bd)
>  	if (!bbm->bbt)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -	/* Set the bad block position */
> -	bbm->badblockpos = ONENAND_BADBLOCK_POS;
> -
>  	/* Set erase shift */
>  	bbm->bbt_erase_shift = this->erase_shift;
>  
> diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h b/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h
> index 0aaa98b219a4..e03aea7f7e61 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h
> @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ struct onenand_chip {
>  	unsigned int		technology;
>  	unsigned int		density_mask;
>  	unsigned int		options;
> +	int			badblockpos;

Any reason not to unsign this field?

>  
>  	unsigned int		erase_shift;
>  	unsigned int		page_shift;
> @@ -188,6 +189,8 @@ struct onenand_chip {
>  /* Check byte access in OneNAND */
>  #define ONENAND_CHECK_BYTE_ACCESS(addr)		(addr & 0x1)
>  
> +#define ONENAND_BADBLOCK_POS		0
> +
>  /*
>   * Options bits
>   */

Thanks,
MiquÃl