[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6940e60e-834d-9cc6-c3b8-657b100ea5db@sholland.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2023 11:06:20 -0600
From: Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] mtd: rawnand: sunxi: Fix ECC strength maximization
Hi Miquèl,
On 1/2/23 10:45, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>>>> This is already accounted for in the subtraction for OOB, since the BBM
>>>> overlaps the first OOB dword. With this change, the driver picks the
>>>> same ECC strength as the vendor driver.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 4796d8655915 ("mtd: nand: sunxi: Support ECC maximization")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/sunxi_nand.c | 3 +--
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/sunxi_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/sunxi_nand.c
>>>> index 1bddeb1be66f..1ecf2cee343b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/sunxi_nand.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/sunxi_nand.c
>>>> @@ -1643,8 +1643,7 @@ static int sunxi_nand_hw_ecc_ctrl_init(struct nand_chip *nand,
>>>> ecc->size = 1024;
>>>> nsectors = mtd->writesize / ecc->size;
>>>>
>>>> - /* Reserve 2 bytes for the BBM */
>>>> - bytes = (mtd->oobsize - 2) / nsectors;
>>>> + bytes = mtd->oobsize / nsectors;
>>>
>>> I'm sorry but I don't think we can make this work. This change would
>>> break all existing users...
>>
>> OK, it is not too much of an issue because I can manually specify the
>> ECC parameters in the devicetree. Do you think it makes sense to fix
>> this when adding new hardware variants/compatible strings?
>
> Actually, looking at the code again, I don't get how the above diff
> could be valid. The "maximize strength" logic (in which this diff is)
> looks for the biggest region to store ECC bytes. These bytes cannot
> be stored on the BBM, which "mtd->oobsize - 2" tries to avoid, so we
> cannot get rid of this.
Right, we cannot overlap the BBM, but the BBM is accounted for in the
line below:
/* 4 non-ECC bytes are added before each ECC bytes section */
bytes -= 4;
Normally those 4 bytes are all free OOB, but for the first ECC step,
those are split into 2 free bytes and 2 BBM bytes:
/*
* The first 2 bytes are used for BB markers, hence we
* only have 2 bytes available in the first user data
* section.
*/
if (!section && ecc->engine_type == NAND_ECC_ENGINE_TYPE_ON_HOST) {
oobregion->offset = 2;
oobregion->length = 2;
return 0;
}
So if we subtract 4 bytes for the each free OOB area, including the
first one, and also subtract 2 bytes for the BBM, we are double-counting
the BBM. I should have made my commit message clearer. But I am going to
drop this patch anyway.
Regards,
Samuel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists