[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3e462d23-a100-6eb2-3740-abe2373a8e15@amlogic.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:30:48 +0800
From: Liang Yang <liang.yang@...ogic.com>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
CC: Jianxin Pan <jianxin.pan@...ogic.com>,
<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Hanjie Lin <hanjie.lin@...ogic.com>,
Victor Wan <victor.wan@...ogic.com>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Yixun Lan <yixun.lan@...ogic.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Jian Hu <jian.hu@...ogic.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
Carlo Caione <carlo@...one.org>,
<linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mtd: rawnand: meson: add support for Amlogic NAND
flash controller
On 2018/10/19 16:10, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:29:05 +0800
> Liang Yang <liang.yang@...ogic.com> wrote:
>
>>> How about defining that the HW returns an array of __le64 instead and then
>>> define the following macros which you can use after converting in the
>>> CPU endianness
>>>
>>> #define ECC_GET_PROTECTED_OOB_BYTE(x, y) (((x) >> (8 * (1 + y)) & GENMASK(7, 0))
>>> #define ECC_COMPLETE BIT(31)
>>> #define ECC_ERR_CNT(x) (((x) >> 24) & GENMASK(5, 0))
>>>
>>> (I'm not entirely sure the field positions are correct, but I'll let you
>>> check that).
>>>
>> ok. i think it should be:
>>
>> #define ECC_GET_PROTECTED_OOB_BYTE(x, y) (((x) >> (8 * y) &
>> GENMASK(7, 0))
>>
>> if x represents the u64 and y represents the index of the u64.
>
> Absolutely.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +#define PER_INFO_BYTE (sizeof(struct meson_nfc_info_format))
>>>> +
>>>> +struct meson_nfc_nand_chip {
>>>> + struct list_head node;
>>>> + struct nand_chip nand;
>>>> + bool is_scramble;
>>>
>>> I think I already mentioned the NAND_NEED_SCRAMBLING flag []. Please
>>> drop this field and test (chip->flags & NAND_NEED_SCRAMBLING) instead.
>>>
>> em, i use NAND_NEED_SCRAMBLING and is_scramble is set:
>> static int meson_nand_attach_chip(struct nand_chip *nand)
>> {
>> ......
>> meson_chip->is_scramble =
>> (nand->options & NAND_NEED_SCRAMBLING) ? 1 : 0;
>> ......
>> }
>
> Why do you need to add a new field then? Just test
> nand->options & NAND_NEED_SCRAMBLING directly or provide a helper
> function that does that.
>
ok, i will fix it.
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists