[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160417185005.2c293b36@bbrezillon>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:50:05 +0200
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc: "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/12] mtd: nand: read ECC algorithm from the new field
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:27:40 +0200
Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com> wrote:
> On 16 April 2016 at 09:58, Boris Brezillon
> <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 21:54:10 +0200
> > Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Now we have all drivers properly setting this new field we can start
> >> using it and proceed with deprecating NAND_ECC_SOFT_BCH.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> >> 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> >> index e1f3cf8..ffd1b32 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> >> @@ -4154,7 +4154,7 @@ int nand_scan_tail(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> >> /*
> >> * If no default placement scheme is given, select an appropriate one.
> >> */
> >> - if (!mtd->ooblayout && (ecc->mode != NAND_ECC_SOFT_BCH)) {
> >> + if (!mtd->ooblayout && ecc->algo != NAND_ECC_BCH) {
> >
> > Should be:
> >
> > if (!mtd->ooblayout && ecc->algo == NAND_ECC_SOFT &&
> > ecc->algo != NAND_ECC_BCH) {
> >
> > Otherwise you're also taking the NAND_ECC_HW + NAND_ECC_BCH into
> > account.
>
> Pretty much yes, but without
> [PATCH 11/12] of: mtd: drop support for NAND_ECC_SOFT_BCH as "soft_bch" mapping
> we may be getting NAND_ECC_SOFT as well as NAND_ECC_SOFT_BCH. And
> 11/12 can't be applied before 10/12. We'll need to support both values
> for this very short moment (after 10/12 but before 11/12).
Why can't you move patch 11 before patch 10. The DT parsing code has
already been patched to set both ecc->algo to NAND_ECC_BCH and
ecc->mode to NAND_ECC_SOFT, so, to it seems perfectly safe to reorder
those changes to me (and change the test as suggested).
Am I missing something?
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists