linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: nand: define struct nand

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140724121607.135631aa@bbrezillon>
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:16:07 +0200
From:	Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Matthieu CASTET <matthieu.castet@...rot.com>
Cc:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: nand: define struct nand_timings

Hi Matthieu,

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:56:50 +0200
Matthieu CASTET <matthieu.castet@...rot.com> wrote:

[...]
> > > 
> > > I did a similar patch [1] (that wasn't merged :( ), and I used reduced
> > > timing info.
> > 
> > I'm sorry it didn't make it to mainline, do you know why ?
> For the omap part there was a gpmc code rewrite that conflict with the
> patch.
> For the mtd stuff, I don't know/remember (I think for was no reply).

Okay.

> 
> > Could you point out where "reduced timing info" is defined in the ONFI
> > specification ?
> It is not defined on onfi.
> This was more a simplification of timings in order to simplify the
> driver side (avoid code duplication). Most controller allow to control
> nRE and nWE pulse and the setup time.
> 
> Do you have drivers that use onfi timings ?

Hopefully, I will have one soon, if I manage to get some time to respin
my sunxi NAND series [1] (I'm using nand timings in the
sunxi_nand_chip_set_timings function) :-)

IIRC, the atmel NAND driver configure its timings through the SMC
(Static Memory Controller) block and this one use the timings you
described.

> > 
> > > 
> > > I also have support for the omap driver
> > > (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/88606/match=) and
> > > a controller we use in our chip (not upstream).
> > 
> > It should be pretty easy to convert the full timings list into a
> > reduced one (actually, that's what your patch is doing), and you can
> > thus port your work on top of these patches.
> Yes I think an helper will be useful in order to help driver to use
> these timings.
> It can be a function that return the reduced version for a onfi mode
> and edo support.

I'm not against the helper function (Brian, any opinion), but I'm not
sure we should call these timings "reduced onfi timings" as they are
not defined in the ONFI spec.

> 
> > 
> > Anyway, I'm not sure what you have in mind, but unless there is a strong
> > reason to drop full timings in favor of reduced ones I'd like to
> > keep them (even if this implies adding a new converter to get reduced
> > timings list).
> > 
> No problem. I have nothing special in mind. I hope this could give ideas
> how to use the onfi timings in mtd drivers (understanding how to use
> ONFI timings can be tricky).
> 

Okay, as I said I'm not opposed to a new helper function that provide
what you called "reduced timings", so feel free to propose
something ;-).

Best Regards,

Boris

[1]http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2014-March/052558.html

-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel 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/