On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:49:42AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 06:47:22PM +0200, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> > On 09/05/2014 18:03, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > > On 12 Mar 07:07 PM, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> > >> --- /dev/null
> > >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/sunxi_nand.c
> > >> @@ -0,0 +1,1276 @@
> ...
> > >> +static int sunxi_nand_ecc_init(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_ecc_ctrl *ecc,
> > >> + struct device_node *np)
> > >> +{
> > >> + struct nand_chip *nand = mtd->priv;
> > >> + int ecc_step_size, ecc_strength;
> > >> + int ret;
> > >> +
> > >> + ecc_step_size = of_get_nand_ecc_step_size(np);
> > >> + ecc_strength = of_get_nand_ecc_strength(np);
> > >> + if (ecc_step_size > 0 && ecc_strength > 0) {
> > >> + ecc->size = ecc_step_size;
> > >> + ecc->strength = ecc_strength;
> > >> + } else {
> > >> + ecc->size = nand->ecc_step_ds;
> > >> + ecc->strength = nand->ecc_strength_ds;
> > >> + }
> > >> +
> > > Shouldn't you check the devicetree value is not weaker than the ONFI-obtained?
> >
> > I can definitely do that.
>
> You can do that here, but take a look at the discussion Ezequiel and I
> had about this:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/67462
>
> We probably don't want to be doing anything drastic like overriding the
> device tree configuration. Instead, we might want to stick a warning
> into the core nand_base code that does the proper comparison of the
> '*_ds' values with the actual values chosen in
> chip->ecc->{size,strength}. The comparison is kind of subtle, actually,
> so it'd be good to do it exactly once for everyone.
I forgot, Ezequiel already submitted this. I'll look at it soon:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/348901/
Brian
--
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
