[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151208091451.4eef0b50@bbrezillon>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:14:51 +0100
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To: Priit Laes <plaes@...es.org>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, 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
Hi Priit,
On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 08:43:05 +0200
Priit Laes <plaes@...es.org> wrote:
> 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'.
Yep, I'll fix that.
>
> [...]
> >
> > 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?
Right, I'll make another patch move this logic into an inline function.
Thanks for the review.
Boris
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists