[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140211140102.GB23150@localhost>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:01:03 -0300
From: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>
To: Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon.dev@...il.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mtd: add per NAND partition ECC config
Hi Boris,
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 11:26:46AM +0100, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> This patch aims to add per partition ECC config for NAND devices.
> It defines a new field in the mtd struct to store the mtd ECC config and
> thus each mtd partition device can store its config instead of using the
> default NAND chip config.
>
> This feature is needed to support the sunxi boot0 paritition case:
> Allwinner boot code (BROM) requires a specific HW ECC for its boot code
> that may not fit the HW NAND requirements for the entire NAND chip.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon.dev@...il.com>
> ---
> Hello,
>
> This patch is just a draft that implement per partition ECC config.
> It's currently not properly splitted (it should be separated in several
> patches) and not documented either.
>
Ah, ah...
> There's at least one point that bother me in the current implementation:
> I introduced DT notions in the nand core code by the mean of the get_ecc_ctrl
> callback, and so far this was kept out of mtd/nand core code (I guess it was
> on purpose).
>
> Please let me know if you see other drawbacks.
>
> If you think per partition ECC should not be implemented, could you help me
> find a way to handle sunxi specific case decribed above ?
>
> drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c | 23 ++-
> drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 428 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
I really appreciate your effort, but 428 changed lines is a too big and
intrusive change. I must admit I'm not smart enough to review such patches.
I honestly think you'll have better luck getting feedback if you take the time
to properly split and document this.
Yeah, it's annoying and time-consuming, but it's globally cheaper for you to
invest time on making it easier for reviewers and maintainers, than for each
of us to invest the time deciphering this :-)
Just my point of view, of course.
--
Ezequiel GarcĂa, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists