[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1449556985.25438.8.camel@plaes.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 08:43:05 +0200
From: Priit Laes <plaes@...es.org>
To: boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
Josh Wu <josh.wu@...el.com>,
Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com,
Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
punnaiah choudary kalluri <punnaia@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH 01/23] mtd: kill the ecclayout->oobavail
field
On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 23:25 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> ecclayout->oobavail is just redundant with the mtd->oobavail field.
> Moreover, it prevents static const definition of ecc layouts since
> the
> NAND framework is calculating this value based on the ecclayout-
> >oobfree
> field.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c | 5 ++-
> drivers/mtd/mtdswap.c | 16 ++++-----
> drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c | 3 --
> drivers/mtd/nand/docg4.c | 1 -
> drivers/mtd/nand/hisi504_nand.c | 1 -
> drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 12 +++----
> drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c | 16 ++++-----
> drivers/mtd/tests/oobtest.c | 49 +++++++++++++--
> ------------
> drivers/staging/mt29f_spinand/mt29f_spinand.c | 1 -
> fs/jffs2/wbuf.c | 6 ++--
> include/linux/mtd/mtd.h | 1 -
> 11 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
>
[..]
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> b/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> index 35d78f7..a906ec2 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> @@ -845,9 +845,6 @@ static struct nand_ecclayout *brcmnand_create_layout(int ecc_level,
> break;
> }
> out:
> - /* Sum available OOB */
> - for (i = 0; i < MTD_MAX_OOBFREE_ENTRIES_LARGE; i++)
> - layout->oobavail += layout->oobfree[i].length;
> return layout;
> }
You can get rid of the 'out' label and replace the single goto in this
function with 'return layout'.
[...]
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> index 0748a13..1107f5c1 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> @@ -2037,7 +2037,7 @@ static int nand_do_read_oob(struct mtd_info
> *mtd, loff_t from,
> stats = mtd->ecc_stats;
>
> if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
> - len = chip->ecc.layout->oobavail;
> + len = mtd->oobavail;
> else
> len = mtd->oobsize;
>
> @@ -2728,7 +2728,7 @@ static int nand_do_write_oob(struct mtd_info
> *mtd, loff_t to,
> __func__, (unsigned int)to, (int)ops-
> >ooblen);
>
> if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
> - len = chip->ecc.layout->oobavail;
> + len = mtd->oobavail;
> else
> len = mtd->oobsize;
>
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c
> b/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c
> index 43b3392..d70bbfd 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c
> @@ -1125,7 +1125,7 @@ static int onenand_mlc_read_ops_nolock(struct
> mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from,
> (int)len);
>
> if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
> - oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail;
> + oobsize = mtd->oobavail;
> else
> oobsize = mtd->oobsize;
>
> @@ -1230,7 +1230,7 @@ static int onenand_read_ops_nolock(struct
> mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from,
> (int)len);
>
> if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
> - oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail;
> + oobsize = mtd->oobavail;
> else
> oobsize = mtd->oobsize;
>
> @@ -1365,7 +1365,7 @@ static int onenand_read_oob_nolock(struct
> mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from,
> ops->oobretlen = 0;
>
> if (mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
> - oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail;
> + oobsize = mtd->oobavail;
> else
> oobsize = mtd->oobsize;
>
> @@ -1887,7 +1887,7 @@ static int onenand_write_ops_nolock(struct
> mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to,
> return 0;
>
> if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
> - oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail;
> + oobsize = mtd->oobavail;
> else
> oobsize = mtd->oobsize;
>
> @@ -2063,7 +2063,7 @@ static int onenand_write_oob_nolock(struct
> mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to,
> ops->oobretlen = 0;
>
> if (mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
> - oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail;
> + oobsize = mtd->oobavail;
> else
> oobsize = mtd->oobsize;
This identical construction seems to occur multiple times in multiple
files. Would it make sense to create a macro for it?
Päikest,
Priit Laes :)
--
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