Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mtd: nand: raw: brcmnand: fallback to detected ecc-strength, ecc-step-size

[Miquel Raynal]

Hi Florian,

Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on Mon, 20 May 2019
12:11:42 -0700:

> On 5/20/19 12:05 PM, Kamal Dasu wrote:
> > This change supports nand-ecc-step-size and nand-ecc-strength fields in
> > brcmnand DT node to be optional.
> > see: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/brcm,brcmnand.txt
> > 
> > If both nand-ecc-strength and nand-ecc-step-size are not specified in
> > device tree node for NAND, raw NAND layer does detect ECC information by
> > reading ONFI extended parameter page for parts using ONFI >= 2.1.
> > In case of non-ONFI NAND parts there could be a nand_id table entry with
> > ECC information. If there is valid device tree entry for nand-ecc-strength
> > and nand-ecc-step-size fields it still shall override the detected values.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c | 11 +++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> > index ce0b8ff..a4d2057 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> > @@ -2144,6 +2144,17 @@ static int brcmnand_setup_dev(struct brcmnand_host *host)
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	if (chip->ecc.mode != NAND_ECC_NONE &&
> > +	    (!chip->ecc.size || !chip->ecc.strength)) {
> > +		if (chip->base.eccreq.step_size && chip->base.eccreq.strength) {
> > +			/* use detected ECC parameters */
> > +			chip->ecc.size = chip->base.eccreq.step_size;
> > +			chip->ecc.strength = chip->base.eccreq.strength;
> > +			pr_info("Using ECC step-size %d, strength %d\n",
> > +				chip->ecc.size, chip->ecc.strength);  
> 
> Nit: should not we use dev_info(&host->pdev->dev) for printing the
> message in case we have multiple NAND controllers on chip, that way we
> can still differentiate them from the prints?

With the above changed

Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks,
MiquÃl