On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 11:56:32 -0300 Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Le dim. 3 févr. 2019 à 11:16, Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@xxxxxxxxxx> > a écrit : > > On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 10:58:13 -0300 > > Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Le dim. 3 févr. 2019 à 4:35, Boris Brezillon > >> <bbrezillon@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> a écrit : > >> > On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 20:19:26 -0300 > >> > Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Add the backend code for the jz4780-bch driver to support the > >> JZ4740 > >> >> SoC from Ingenic. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> --- > >> >> > >> >> Changes: > >> >> > >> >> v2: New patch > >> >> > >> >> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/Makefile | 2 +- > >> >> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/jz4740_bch.c | 173 > >> >> ++++++++++++++++++ > >> >> .../mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/jz4780_bch_common.c | 1 + > >> >> .../nand/raw/ingenic/jz4780_bch_internal.h | 1 + > >> >> 4 files changed, 176 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> >> create mode 100644 drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/jz4740_bch.c > >> >> > >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/Makefile > >> >> b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/Makefile > >> >> index f38b467490cf..d16c96113a93 100644 > >> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/Makefile > >> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/Makefile > >> >> @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ > >> >> obj-$(CONFIG_MTD_NAND_JZ4740) += jz4740_nand.o > >> >> obj-$(CONFIG_MTD_NAND_JZ4780) += jz4780_nand.o > >> jz4780_bch_common.o > >> >> \ > >> >> - jz4780_bch.o jz4725b_bch.o > >> >> + jz4780_bch.o jz4725b_bch.o jz4740_bch.o > >> > > >> > I still don't see the point of the jz4780_bch_common/jz47xxx_bch > >> > separation. You seem to always embed all objects anyway, so you > >> can > >> > just put the code for both engines in the same source file and > >> decide > >> > which one to use based on the compat (which you already do > >> anyway). > >> > >> Each SoC has a different set of registers for the BCH hardware. I > >> can > >> try to > >> cram everything into one file, but it won't be that much cleaner. > > > > Then maybe they deserve separate drivers/modules. > > > > BTW, didn't you say that one IP uses Reed-Salomon instead of BCH. I'd > > suggest prefixing structs and functions with jz47xx_ecc instead of > > jz47xx_bch and naming the common part jz47xx_ecc.c to reflect that. > > Would it be a good idea to make a generic ECC API that the jz47xx_nand > driver could use? Then the three jz47xx BCH codepaths could be separate > drivers that register with the generic ECC core. Definitely. Actually, Miquel is already working on that, but I don't think it's a good idea to wait for this new framework to be finished to get your changes merged. So I'd recommend having a jz specific ECC API (pretty much the one you have in the common file expect it would be prefixed with _ecc instead of _bch) and convert it to the generic approach afterwards. Given the size of the common.c file, you can even put everything in jz47xx_ecc.h as inline funcs to avoid having yet another module.
