[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161202085742.06cff892@bbrezillon>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 08:57:42 +0100
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/39] mtd: nand: denali: fix erased page check code
On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 13:33:58 +0900
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
>
> 2016-11-28 0:21 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>:
> > On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 03:05:55 +0900
> > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Currently, is_erased() is called against "buf" twice, so the second
> >> call is meaningless. The second one should be checked against
> >> chip->oob_poi.
> >>
> >
> > IMO, patch 9 to 12 should be squashed in a single patch. All you're
> > doing in these patch is fixing the check_erased_page logic.
> >
> > You can describe the different broken thing in the commit message, but
> > splitting things as you do does not help much.
>
>
> OK. I will do so.
>
> I realized some mistakes in this part
> (both in my patches and in the current mainline code),
> so I will rework it in a more sensible chunk.
>
>
> > Also, please have at nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk() [1] instead of using
> > a private method (is_erased()) to check if the page is erased.
> > With this method you get bitflips in erased pages correction for free.
>
> I will use this helper, thanks!
>
>
>
>
> With this, I think I answered all of your questions to v1.
You did. I'm waiting for the v2 now ;)
>
> (Please tell me if there is something I missed to answer.)
>
> Thanks a lot for your review.
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists