Hi Boris,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Sun, 10 May
2020 10:41:45 +0200:
> On Sun, 10 May 2020 10:35:47 +0200
> Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Sun, 10 May
> > 2020 09:02:30 +0200:
> >
> > > On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:13:38 +0200
> > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +static int anfc_len_to_steps(struct nand_chip *chip, unsigned int len)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned int steps = 1, pktsize = len;
> > > > +
> > > > + while (pktsize > ANFC_MAX_PKT_SIZE) {
> > > > + steps *= 2;
> > > > + pktsize = DIV_ROUND_UP(len, steps);
> > > > + }
> > >
> > >
> > > Same here, you shouldn't have a round_up() but instead complain if
> > > "len != pkt_size * steps"
> > >
> > > if (len % 4)
> > > return -ENOTSUPP;
> >
> > This is not possible, we need unaligned accesses for NAND detection.
>
> Duh, this really calls for a comment saying how wrong this is and how
> it should be fixed (discussions we had about data size constraints and
> the 'can-issue-more' flag on data_in/out instructions).
Agreed, I'll add a comment there :/
>
> >
> > >
> > > if (len < ANFC_MAX_PKT_SIZE)
> > > return len;
> > >
> > > for (steps = 2; steps < ANFC_MAX_STEPS; steps *= 2) {
> > > pkt_size = len / steps;
> > > if (pkt_size <= ANFC_MAX_PKT_SIZE)
> > > break;
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (pkt_size * steps != len)
> > > return -ENOTSUPP;
> > >
> > > return pkt_size;
> >
> > The rest looks fine, I will change it and also add these checks in
> > ->exec_op() check_nonly path.
>
