[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171030092303.42383c59@bbrezillon>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 09:23:03 +0100
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To: motobud@...il.com
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix writing mtdoops to nand flash.
Hi Brent,
Subject should be prefixed by "mtd: nand: ", so
"mtd: nand: Fix writing mtdoops to nand flash"
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 23:23:43 -0500
motobud@...il.com wrote:
> From: Brent Taylor <motobud@...il.com>
>
> When mtdoops calls mtd_panic_write, it eventually calls
> panic_nand_write in nand_base.c. In order to properly
> wait for the nand chip to be ready in panic_nand_wait,
> the chip must first be selected.
>
> When using the atmel nand flash controller, a panic
> would occur due to a NULL pointer exception.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brent Taylor <motobud@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> index 12edaae17d81..0a8058a66d93 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> @@ -2802,9 +2802,14 @@ static int panic_nand_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len,
> struct mtd_oob_ops ops;
> int ret;
>
> + int chipnr = (int)(to >> chip->chip_shift);
> + chip->select_chip(mtd, chipnr);
> +
> /* Wait for the device to get ready */
> panic_nand_wait(mtd, chip, 400);
>
> + chip->select_chip(mtd, -1);
> +
Duh! Looks like a piece of code that is never tested. Did you face the
problem or did you find out by inspecting the code?
Anyway, I fear the atmel driver is not the only one to rely on the chip
to be selected when ->dev_ready() is called so this should definitely
be fixed. Also, we should probably move the ->select_chip() and
panic_nand_wait() calls after panic_nand_get_device(), and I don't
think we need to unselect the chip (it will be taken care of by
nand_do_write_ops()).
> /* Grab the device */
> panic_nand_get_device(chip, mtd, FL_WRITING);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists