[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180430120046.3c87db2a@bbrezillon>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:00:46 +0200
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
To: Jane Wan <Jane.Wan@...ia.com>
Cc: dwmw2@...radead.org, computersforpeace@...il.com,
ties.bos@...ia.com, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix FSL NAND driver to read all ONFI parameter
pages
Hi Jane,
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:19:55 -0700
Jane Wan <Jane.Wan@...ia.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jane Wan <Jane.Wan@...ia.com>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_nand.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_nand.c
> index ca36b35..a3cf6ca 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_nand.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_nand.c
> @@ -413,6 +413,7 @@ static void fsl_ifc_cmdfunc(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned int command,
> struct fsl_ifc_mtd *priv = chip->priv;
> struct fsl_ifc_ctrl *ctrl = priv->ctrl;
> struct fsl_ifc_runtime __iomem *ifc = ctrl->rregs;
> + int len;
>
> /* clear the read buffer */
> ifc_nand_ctrl->read_bytes = 0;
> @@ -462,11 +463,12 @@ static void fsl_ifc_cmdfunc(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned int command,
> ifc_out32(column, &ifc->ifc_nand.row3);
>
> /*
> - * although currently it's 8 bytes for READID, we always read
> - * the maximum 256 bytes(for PARAM)
> + * For READID, read 8 bytes that are currently used.
> + * For PARAM, read all 3 copies of 256-bytes pages.
> */
> - ifc_out32(256, &ifc->ifc_nand.nand_fbcr);
> - ifc_nand_ctrl->read_bytes = 256;
> + len = (command == NAND_CMD_PARAM) ? (3 * 256) : 8;
> + ifc_out32(len, &ifc->ifc_nand.nand_fbcr);
> + ifc_nand_ctrl->read_bytes = len;
This driver really calls for a clean rework to transition to
->exec_op(). Guessing the amount of data to be read from ->cmdfunc() is
broken and your patch series just shows how broken this is. What next?
What if some NANDs have 4 or more copies of the param page?
I'm still undecided whether I want to apply this patch. I guess having
some guarantees that someone will actually work on implementing
->exec_op() in a near future would help me take this decision.
Regards,
Boris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists