[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190304100106.72ad49c3@xps13>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 10:01:06 +0100
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] mtd: rawnand: denali: refactor syndrome layout
handling for raw access
Hi Masahiro,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote on Tue, 12 Feb
2019 16:12:54 +0900:
> The Denali IP adopts the syndrome page layout (payload and ECC are
> interleaved). The *_page_raw() and *_oob() callbacks are complicated
> because they must hide the underlying layout used by the hardware,
> and always return contiguous in-band and out-of-band data.
>
> Currently, similar code is duplicated to reorganize the data layout.
> For example, denali_read_page_raw() and denali_write_page_raw() look
> almost the same.
>
> The idea for refactoring is to split the code into two parts:
> [1] conversion of page layout
> [2] what to do at every ECC chunk boundary
>
> For [1], I wrote denali_raw_payload_op() and denali_raw_oob_op().
> They manipulate data for the Denali controller's specific page layout
> of in-band, out-of-band, respectively.
Could you please comment the purpose of these two functions in the code
as well?
>
> The difference between write and read is just the operation at
> ECC chunk boundaries. For example, denali_read_oob() calls
> nand_change_read_column_op(), whereas denali_write_oob() calls
> nand_change_write_column_op(). So, I implemented [2] as a callback
> passed into [1].
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2: None
>
> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/denali.c | 354 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> 1 file changed, 163 insertions(+), 191 deletions(-)
Too bad that the size of the driver did not shrink more than that :)
[...]
> - /* OOB free */
> - len = oobsize - (bufpoi - chip->oob_poi);
> - if (write)
> - nand_change_write_column_op(chip, size - len, bufpoi, len,
> - false);
> - else
> - nand_change_read_column_op(chip, size - len, bufpoi, len,
> - false);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int denali_memcpy_in(void *buf, unsigned int offset, unsigned int len,
> + void *priv)
> +{
> + memcpy(buf, priv + offset, len);
> + return 0;
> }
Maybe this "callback" and the (_out cousin) could be part of you
controller's structure, and you could use a read/write flag instead of
passing the functions' pointer?
Thanks,
Miquèl
Powered by blists - more mailing lists