On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:35 AM, Miquel Raynal
<miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
wrote on Sat, 9 Feb 2019 16:23:04
-0300:
The boot ROM of the JZ4725B SoC expects a specific OOB layout on the
NAND, so we use it unconditionally in the ingenic-nand driver.
Also add the jz4725b-bch driver to support the JZ4725B-specific BCH
hardware.
Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
---
Changes:
v2: Instead of forcing the OOB layout, leave it to the board code or
devicetree to decide if the jz4725b-specific layout should be
used
or not.
v3: - Revert the change in v2, as the previous behaviour was
correct.
- Also add support for the hardware BCH of the JZ4725B in this
patch.
v4: - Add MODULE_* macros
- Add tweaks suggested by upstream feedback
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/Kconfig | 10 +
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_nand.c | 48 ++++-
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/jz4725b_bch.c | 292
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 350 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/jz4725b_bch.c
[...]
+static int jz4725b_calculate(struct ingenic_ecc *bch,
+ struct ingenic_ecc_params *params,
+ const u8 *buf, u8 *ecc_code)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ mutex_lock(&bch->lock);
+ ret = jz4725b_bch_init(bch, params, true);
I really don't like this bch_init name. A BCH initialization is what
is
supposed to be done only once (probably at boot time), can you find a
better name or a better organization of the correct/calculate path?
jz4725b_bch_setup() maybe?
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(bch->dev, "Unable to init BCH with given parameters\n");
+ goto out_disable;
+ }
+
+ jz4725b_bch_write_data(bch, buf, params->size);
+
+ ret = jz4725b_bch_wait_complete(bch, BCH_BHINT_ENCF, NULL);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(bch->dev, "timed out while calculating ECC\n");
+ goto out_disable;
+ }
+
+ jz4725b_bch_read_parity(bch, ecc_code, params->bytes);
+
+out_disable:
+ jz4725b_bch_disable(bch);
+ mutex_unlock(&bch->lock);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
[...]
Thanks,
Miquèl
