[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <146a3abbbff4dcef30ad662a0fb85ff1@agner.ch>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 14:19:18 +0200
From: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
Cc: Benjamin Lindqvist <benjamin.lindqvist@...ian.se>,
dwmw2@...radead.org, computersforpeace@...il.com,
marek.vasut@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
thierry.reding@...il.com, mturquette@...libre.com,
sboyd@...nel.org, Lucas Stach <dev@...xeye.de>,
miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, richard@....at, marcel@...wiler.com,
krzk@...nel.org, digetx@...il.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
pdeschrijver@...dia.com, pgaikwad@...dia.com,
Mirza Krak <mirza.krak@...il.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/5] mtd: rawnand: add NVIDIA Tegra NAND Flash
controller driver
On 24.05.2018 13:53, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> On Thu, 24 May 2018 13:30:14 +0200
> Benjamin Lindqvist <benjamin.lindqvist@...ian.se> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stefan,
>>
>> It seems to me that a probe similar to what the BootROM does shouldn't
>> be awfully complicated to implement - just cycle through the switch
>> cases in case of an ECC error. But I guess that's more of an idea for
>> further improvements rather than a comment to the patch set under
>> review.
>
> Nope, not really an option, because you're not guaranteed that the NAND
> will be used as a boot media, and the first page or first set of pages
> might just be erased.
>
Yeah I did not meant probing like the Boot ROM does.
What I meant was using only the ECC modes which are supported by the
Boot ROM when the driver tries to choose a viable mode. So that would
be:
- RS t=4
- BCH t=8
- BCH t=16
Maybe we could add a property to enable that behavior:
tegra,use-bootable-ecc-only;
>>
>> However, I think that allowing for an override of the oobsize
>> inference would be a good idea before merging, no? This could just be
>> a trivial #ifdef (at least temporarily). If you agree but don't feel
>> like doing it yourself, I'd be happy to pitch in. Let me know.
>
> That's why we have nand-ecc-xxx properties in the DT.
>
Yes, nand-ecc-strength is the first thing I plan to implement, that way
strength can be defined in dt.
--
Stefan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists