Hi,
Le ven. 15 mars 2019 à 9:40, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
a écrit :
Hi Paul,
Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 13 Mar 2019
23:22:56
+0100:
Use the 'ecc-engine' standard property instead of the custom
'ingenic,bch-controller' custom property, which is now deprecated.
Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Notes:
v5: New patch
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c | 13 ++++++++++---
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c
b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c
index d7f3a8c3abea..30436ca6628a 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c
@@ -82,9 +82,9 @@ static struct ingenic_ecc *ingenic_ecc_get(struct
device_node *np)
/**
* of_ingenic_ecc_get() - get the ECC controller from a DT node
- * @of_node: the node that contains a bch-controller property.
+ * @of_node: the node that contains a ecc-engine property.
Would "contains an ecc-engine property" be better English?
I am not sure what is the rule when it comes to plain English with
variable names. However if you agree, no need to re-send the series, I
can fix it when applying.
Yes, that's better.
BTW, I added hw ECC engines support to my generic ECC engine
implementation, but migrating the whole raw NAND subsystem (using I/O
requests like in the SPI-NAND core, adding prepare/finish_io_req
hooks)
is going to be much more invasive than initially expected, so I am not
sure I will finish the migration any time soon.
Ok, I will follow the development then.
Thanks,
Miquèl
One thing I notice with my patchset: it works perfectly on top of 4.20,
but on top of 5.0 I am unable to erase any eraseblock with flash_erase.
I get -EIO every time. I'm trying to debug it but didn't go very far,
it looks like nand_status_op() gives me a status of 0xff. Do you know
what could have changed between 4.20 and 5.0 that could trigger this
bug?
Second thing, everytime I reboot it fails to find the BBT. That's
because
the BBT marker is overwritten by the ECC data as they occupy the same
area
in the OOB space. Is there a way to move the BBT marker? Or should I use
NAND_BBT_NO_OOB then? Since the eraseblocks where the BBTs are located
is used in my system partition, won't that conflict with the data?
Thanks,
-Paul
