Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 May 2020 18:29:23 +0200 | From | Miquel Raynal <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] nand: raw: use write_oob_raw for MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB mode |
| |
Hello,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com> wrote on Mon, 4 May 2020 12:32:37 +0200:
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 11:42:53 +0200 > Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Some NAND controllers change the ECC bytes when OOB is written with ECC > > enabled. > > This is a problem in brcmnand, since adding JFFS2 cleanmarkers after the page > > has been erased will change the ECC bytes to 0 and the controller will think > > the block is bad. > > It can be fixed by using write_oob_raw, which ensures ECC is disabled. > > > > Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@gmail.com> > > --- > > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c > > index c24e5e2ba130..755d25200520 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c > > @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ static int nand_do_write_oob(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t to, > > > > nand_fill_oob(chip, ops->oobbuf, ops->ooblen, ops); > > > > - if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_RAW) > > + if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB || ops->mode == MTD_OPS_RAW) > > status = chip->ecc.write_oob_raw(chip, page & chip->pagemask); > > The doc says: > > @MTD_OPS_PLACE_OOB: OOB data are placed at the given offset (default) > @MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB: OOB data are automatically placed at the free areas > which are defined by the internal ecclayout > @MTD_OPS_RAW: data are transferred as-is, with no error > correction; this mode implies %MTD_OPS_PLACE_OOB > > To me, that means MTD_OPS_PLACE_OOB and MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB do not imply > MTD_OPS_RAW. Anyway those modes are just too vague. We really should > separate the ECC-disabled/ECC-enabled concept (AKA raw vs non-raw mode) > from the OOB placement scheme. IIRC, Miquel had a patchset doing that. > > We also should have the concept of protected OOB-region vs > unprotected-OOB-region if we want JFFS2 to work with controllers that > protect part of the OOB region. Once we have that we can patch JFFS2 > to write things with "ECC-disabled"+"auto-OOB-placement-on-unprotected > area".
I see the problem but as Boris said the fix is not valid as-is. Problem is: I don't have a better proposal yet.
Is forcing JFFS2 to write cleanmarkers in raw mode only an option?
| |