[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170718095308.4fa4c232@bbrezillon>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:53:08 +0200
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To: Miquel RAYNAL <miquel.raynal@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: nand: fix lack of oob layout when using no ecc
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:05:19 +0200
Miquel RAYNAL <miquel.raynal@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> Fix nand core lack of OOB layout when:
> - the NFC driver does not provide any OOB layout,
> - ECC operations are disabled (using NAND_ECC_NONE).
> Using this configuration leads to a crash during the probe.
>
> Add layout functions for small and large pages with mainly free bytes
> plus reserved space for bad block markers.
>
> Check the configuration and eventually assign this OOB layout in
> nand_scan_tail().
>
> Bad block markers position was extracted from the existing OOB layouts
> by assigning as free all the bytes marked as ECC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...e-electrons.com>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> index c5221795a1e8..98ac54c0a0a7 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> @@ -53,7 +53,38 @@ static int nand_get_device(struct mtd_info *mtd, int new_state);
> static int nand_do_write_oob(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to,
> struct mtd_oob_ops *ops);
>
> -/* Define default oob placement schemes for large and small page devices */
> +/*
> + * Define default OOB placement schemes for:
> + * - no ECC or software ECC
> + * - small or large page devices
> + */
> +static int nand_ooblayout_free_sp_no_ecc(struct mtd_info *mtd, int section,
> + struct mtd_oob_region *oobregion)
> +{
> + if (section > 1)
> + return -ERANGE;
> +
> + if (!section) {
> + if (mtd->oobsize == 16) {
> + oobregion->offset = 0;
> + oobregion->length = 4;
> + } else {
> + oobregion->offset = 0;
> + oobregion->length = 5;
> + }
> + } else {
> + oobregion->offset = 6;
> + oobregion->length = mtd->oobsize - oobregion->offset;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +const struct mtd_ooblayout_ops nand_ooblayout_sp_no_ecc_ops = {
> + .free = nand_ooblayout_free_sp_no_ecc,
> +};
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nand_ooblayout_sp_no_ecc_ops);
> +
> static int nand_ooblayout_ecc_sp(struct mtd_info *mtd, int section,
> struct mtd_oob_region *oobregion)
> {
> @@ -109,6 +140,23 @@ const struct mtd_ooblayout_ops nand_ooblayout_sp_ops = {
> };
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nand_ooblayout_sp_ops);
>
> +static int nand_ooblayout_free_lp_no_ecc(struct mtd_info *mtd, int section,
> + struct mtd_oob_region *oobregion)
> +{
> + if (section)
> + return -ERANGE;
> +
> + oobregion->offset = 2;
> + oobregion->length = mtd->oobsize - oobregion->offset;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +const struct mtd_ooblayout_ops nand_ooblayout_lp_no_ecc_ops = {
> + .free = nand_ooblayout_free_lp_no_ecc,
> +};
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nand_ooblayout_lp_no_ecc_ops);
> +
> static int nand_ooblayout_ecc_lp(struct mtd_info *mtd, int section,
> struct mtd_oob_region *oobregion)
> {
> @@ -4635,6 +4683,17 @@ int nand_scan_tail(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> chip->oob_poi = chip->buffers->databuf + mtd->writesize;
>
> /*
> + * When using ECC_NONE, ooblayout must only reserve space for bad block
> + * markers.
> + */
> + if (!mtd->ooblayout && ecc->mode == NAND_ECC_NONE) {
> + if (mtd->writesize <= 512)
> + mtd_set_ooblayout(mtd, &nand_ooblayout_sp_no_ecc_ops);
> + else
> + mtd_set_ooblayout(mtd, &nand_ooblayout_lp_no_ecc_ops);
> + }
Just realized you were breaking existing users of ECC_NONE. Before your
patch, they were using nand_ooblayout_sp_ops for NANDs with 8 or 16 OOB
bytes, and nand_ooblayout_lp_hamming_ops for NANDs with 64 or 128
OOB bytes.
Probably better to put this in the following switch (default case).
> +
> + /*
> * If no default placement scheme is given, select an appropriate one.
> */
> if (!mtd->ooblayout &&
Powered by blists - more mailing lists