[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ad00e3739457dadc919bbebf9f6901b7@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:49:46 +0530
From: Abhishek Sahu <absahu@...eaurora.org>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 15/16] mtd: rawnand: qcom: helper function for raw read
On 2018-06-07 18:13, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Abhishek,
>
> On Mon, 28 May 2018 13:04:45 +0530, Abhishek Sahu
> <absahu@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-05-27 19:23, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>> > Hi Abhishek,
>> > > On Fri, 25 May 2018 17:51:43 +0530, Abhishek Sahu
>> > <absahu@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> > >> This patch does minor code reorganization for raw reads.
>> >> Currently the raw read is required for complete page but for
>> >> subsequent patches related with erased codeword bit flips
>> >> detection, only few CW should be read. So, this patch adds
>> >> helper function and introduces the read CW bitmask which
>> >> specifies which CW reads are required in complete page.
>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sahu <absahu@...eaurora.org>
>> >> ---
<snip>
>> >> + for (i = start_step; i < last_step; i++) {
>> > > This comment applies for both patches 15 and 16:
>> > > I would really prefer having a qcom_nandc_read_cw_raw() that reads only
>> > one CW. From qcom_nandc_read_page_raw() you would loop over all the CW
>> > calling qcom_nandc_read_cw_raw() helper (it's raw reads, we don't care
>> > about performances)
>>
>> Doing that way will degrade performances hugely.
>>
>> Currently once we formed the descriptor, the DMA will take care
>> of complete page data transfer from NAND device to buffer and will
>> generate single interrupt.
>>
>> Now it will form one CW descriptor and wait for it to be finished.
>> In background, the data transfer from NAND device will be also
>> split and for every CW, it will give the PAGE_READ command again,
>> which is again time consuming.
>>
>> Data transfer degradation is ok but it will increase CPU time
>> and number of interrupts which will impact other peripherals
>> performance that time.
>>
>> Most of the NAND parts has 4K page size i.e 8 CWs.
>>
>> > and from ->read_page_raw() you would check
>> > CW with uncorrectable errors for being blank with that helper. You
>> > would avoid the not-so-nice logic where you read all the CW between the
>> > first bad one and the last bad one.
>> >
>> The reading b/w first CW and last CW is only from NAND device to
>> NAND
>> HW buffers. The NAND controller has 2 HW buffers which is used to
>> optimize the traffic throughput between the NAND device and
>> system memory,in both directions. Each buffer is 544B in size: 512B
>> for data + 32B spare bytes. Throughput optimization is achieved by
>> executing internal data transfers (i.e. between NANDc buffers and
>> system memory) simultaneously with NAND device operations.
>>
>> Making separate function won't help in improving performance for
>> this case either since once every thing is set for reading page
>> (descriptor formation, issue the PAGE_READ, Data transfer from
>> Flash array to data register in NAND device), the read time from
>> device to NAND HW buffer is very less. Again, we did optimization
>> in which the copying from NAND HW buffer to actual buffer is being
>> done only for those CW's only.
>>
>> Again, in this case CPU time will be more.
>>
>
>
> I understand the point and thanks for detailing it. But raw access
> happen either during debug (we don't care about CPU time) or when there
> is an uncorrectable error, which is very unlikely to happen very often
> when using eg. UBI/UBIFS. So I'm still convinced it is better to have a
> _simple_ and straightforward code for this path than something way
> harder to understand and much faster.
>
> You can add a comment to explain what would be the fastest way and
> why though.
>
Thanks Miquel. I will do the changes to make function for
single codeword raw read.
Regards,
Abhishek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists