On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 06:10:28AM +0100, Huang Shijie wrote:
> The patch "2febcdf mtd: gpmi: set the BCHs geometry with the ecc info"
> makes the gpmi to use the ECC info provided by the MTD code, and creates
> a different NAND ecc layout for the BCH which brings a regression to us:
> We can not mount the ubifs which was created by the old NAND ecc layout.
>
> This patch adds a new property : "fsl,use-mtd-ecc-info".
This name sounds _extremely_ Linux-specific, and that's not the direction I'd
like to see bindings take.
>
> If we do not enable it, we will use the ecc strength calculated by ourselves
> and use all the OOB area (this is the legacy method);
>
> If we enable it, we will use the ecc strength provided by the MTD layer,
> and create a new NAND ecc layout which may has free space in the OOB
> (for some SLC nand, we may support the JFFS2 with the new NAND ecc layout).
If the patch you referenced changed the layout without maintainng backwards
compatibility, it sounds like it is broken and has caused a regression.
This is a work around, not a fix.
>
> Signed-off-by: Huang Shijie <b32955@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmi-nand.txt | 4 ++++
> drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c | 7 ++++++-
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmi-nand.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmi-nand.txt
> index 551b2a1..fe84a3d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmi-nand.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/gpmi-nand.txt
> @@ -17,6 +17,10 @@ Required properties:
> Optional properties:
> - nand-on-flash-bbt: boolean to enable on flash bbt option if not
> present false
> + - fsl,use-mtd-ecc-info: By enabling this boolean property, the gpmi can uses
> + the MTD's ECC info (if the MTD has). So we may have free
> + space in the OOB area, and we may support the JFFS2 with
> + some SLC nand, such as Micron's SLC nand.
I'm not very familiar with MTDs. Where exactly does this ECC info come from? Is
it data internal to Linux, or is it probed from the device itself?
>
> The device tree may optionally contain sub-nodes describing partitions of the
> address space. See partition.txt for more detail.
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c
> index 5a1bbc7..62c0712 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c
> @@ -271,7 +271,9 @@ static int legacy_set_geometry(struct gpmi_nand_data *this)
> dev_err(this->dev,
> "We can not support this nand chip."
> " Its required ecc strength(%d) is beyond our"
> - " capability(%d).\n", geo->ecc_strength,
> + " capability(%d). If you have not enabled the"
> + "'fsl,use-mtd-ecc-info', enable it and try again.\n",
> + geo->ecc_strength,
Why are we telling people to do that with no description as to when to do so?
Can we not just fall back to this instead?
> (GPMI_IS_MX6Q(this) ? MX6_ECC_STRENGTH_MAX
> : MXS_ECC_STRENGTH_MAX));
> return -EINVAL;
> @@ -352,6 +354,9 @@ static int legacy_set_geometry(struct gpmi_nand_data *this)
>
> int common_nfc_set_geometry(struct gpmi_nand_data *this)
> {
> + if (!of_property_read_bool(this->dev->of_node, "fsl,use-mtd-ecc-info"))
> + return legacy_set_geometry(this);
> +
> return set_geometry_by_ecc_info(this) ? 0 : legacy_set_geometry(this);
This looks like it could be reorganised to fall back if necessary.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
