Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Sep 2021 00:24:35 +0200 | From | Miquel Raynal <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] mtd: Changes for v5.13-rc4 |
| |
Hi Linus,
miquel.raynal@bootlin.com wrote on Wed, 26 May 2021 18:46:12 +0200:
> Hi Linus, > > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote on Wed, 26 May > 2021 06:20:35 -1000: > > > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 5:59 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > > > Raw NAND: > > > * txx9ndfmc, tmio, sharpsl, ndfc, lpc32xx_slc, fsmc, cs553x: > > > - Fix external use of SW Hamming ECC helper > > > > Why are these guys all pointlessly duplicating the ecc wrapper > > functions for their ecc 'correct' functions? > > > > The whole "the Hamming software ECC engine has been updated to become > > a proper and independent ECC engine" excuse makes no sense. If > > multiple chips just want a basic sw hamming helper, then they should > > have one. Not have to be forced to each write their own pointless > > wrapper like this. > > > > These chip drivers just want 'ecc_sw_hamming_correct()' with the > > proper arguments, and it seems entirely wrong to duplicate the helper > > five times or whatever. There should just be a generic helper - the > > way there used to be. > > > > In fact, I would generally strongly recommend that if there used to be > > a generic helper that different chip drivers used (ie the old > > rawnand_sw_hamming_correct()), then such a helper should be left alone > > and not change the semantics of it. > > I am not happy neither with the fix (which I wrote myself) as my first > goal was to uniformize the way the Hamming helpers are being called (as > part of a much bigger work). I assumed that all drivers either used the > Hamming software engine or simply didn't, without thinking about the > "intermediate" situations where a particular driver would just want to > call a particular Hamming helper to workaround its "missing" hardware > capabilities. > > Unfortunately when I spotted that many drivers were broken by my rework > I decided to provide per-driver fixes, while, as you suggest, I should > probably have declared a generic 'hamming correct' core helper and use > that directly instead of duplicating the logic in each broken driver. > > > The new "proper independent ECC engine" that had new semantics should > > have been the one that got a new name, rather than breaking an old and > > existing helper function and then making the chip drivers pointlessly > > write their own new helper functions. > > > > I've pulled this, but under protest. The patch honestly just looks > > like mindless duplication.
Just to let you know that I proposed there [1] a series to clean this up.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/20210928221507.199198-1-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com/T/#t
Thanks, Miquèl
| |