Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:37:34 +0100 | From | Paul Cercueil <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 09/12] mtd: rawnand: ingenic: Make use of ecc-engine property |
| |
Hi,
Le ven. 15 mars 2019 à 9:40, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> a écrit : > Hi Paul, > > Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net> wrote on Wed, 13 Mar 2019 > 23:22:56 > +0100: > >> Use the 'ecc-engine' standard property instead of the custom >> 'ingenic,bch-controller' custom property, which is now deprecated. >> >> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net> >> --- >> >> Notes: >> v5: New patch >> >> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c | 13 ++++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c >> b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c >> index d7f3a8c3abea..30436ca6628a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c >> @@ -82,9 +82,9 @@ static struct ingenic_ecc *ingenic_ecc_get(struct >> device_node *np) >> >> /** >> * of_ingenic_ecc_get() - get the ECC controller from a DT node >> - * @of_node: the node that contains a bch-controller property. >> + * @of_node: the node that contains a ecc-engine property. > > Would "contains an ecc-engine property" be better English? > > I am not sure what is the rule when it comes to plain English with > variable names. However if you agree, no need to re-send the series, I > can fix it when applying.
Yes, that's better.
> BTW, I added hw ECC engines support to my generic ECC engine > implementation, but migrating the whole raw NAND subsystem (using I/O > requests like in the SPI-NAND core, adding prepare/finish_io_req > hooks) > is going to be much more invasive than initially expected, so I am not > sure I will finish the migration any time soon.
Ok, I will follow the development then.
> Thanks, > Miquèl
One thing I notice with my patchset: it works perfectly on top of 4.20, but on top of 5.0 I am unable to erase any eraseblock with flash_erase. I get -EIO every time. I'm trying to debug it but didn't go very far, it looks like nand_status_op() gives me a status of 0xff. Do you know what could have changed between 4.20 and 5.0 that could trigger this bug?
Second thing, everytime I reboot it fails to find the BBT. That's because the BBT marker is overwritten by the ECC data as they occupy the same area in the OOB space. Is there a way to move the BBT marker? Or should I use NAND_BBT_NO_OOB then? Since the eraseblocks where the BBTs are located is used in my system partition, won't that conflict with the data?
Thanks, -Paul
| |