On 11/25/2014 07:19 PM, Aaron Sierra wrote:
>> From: "Ezequiel Garcia" <ezequiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 2:08:59 PM
>>
>> On 11/08/2014 04:11 PM, Aaron Sierra wrote:
>> [..]
>>> +
>>> + /* We know mode is either NAND_ECC_SOFT or NAND_ECC_SOFT_BCH */
>>> + if (strength < 0 && mode == NAND_ECC_SOFT_BCH) {
>>> + dev_err(fun->dev,
>>> + "ECC BCH mode requires nand-ecc-strength property");
>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>> + goto err;
>>> + } else if (strength == 0) {
>>> + dev_err(fun->dev, "ECC strength of 0 bits is unsupported");
>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>> + goto err;
>>> + } else if (strength == 1 && mode == NAND_ECC_SOFT_BCH) {
>>> + dev_err(fun->dev, "ECC BCH mode requires > 1-bit strength");
>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>> + goto err;
>>> + } else if (strength > 1 && mode == NAND_ECC_SOFT) {
>>> + dev_warn(fun->dev,
>>> + "Forcing ECC BCH due to %d-bit strength\n", strength);
>>> + mode = NAND_ECC_SOFT_BCH;
>>> + }
>>> + fun->chip.ecc.mode = mode;
>>> + fun->chip.ecc.strength = strength;
>>> +
>>
>> Aside from my comment about the lack of ECC specification in the
>> binding, I think the above is wrong.
>>
>> You don't have hardware ECC, but software ECC (either hamming or BCH).
>> So, you don't need to specify any nand_ecc_ctrl.strength (i.e.
>> ecc.strength above).
>>
>> It'll be set by the NAND core and override any value you set
>> See nand_scan_tail.
>
> Ezequiel,
> This patch was originally the second of two patches. The first was applied
> to l2-mtd.git on 11/5/2014:
>
> mtd: nand: Base BCH ECC bytes on required strength
>
> It affects the code in nand_scan_tail that you're referring to so that it
> looks like this:
>
> /*
> * Board driver should supply ecc.size and ecc.bytes values to
> * select how many bits are correctable; see nand_bch_init()
> * for details. Otherwise, default to 4 bits for large page
> * devices.
> */
> if (!ecc->size && (mtd->oobsize >= 64)) {
> ecc->size = 512;
> ecc->bytes = DIV_ROUND_UP(13 * ecc->strength, 8);
> }
> ecc->priv = nand_bch_init(mtd, ecc->size, ecc->bytes,
> &ecc->layout);
> if (!ecc->priv) {
> pr_warn("BCH ECC initialization failed!\n");
> BUG();
> }
> ecc->strength = ecc->bytes * 8 / fls(8 * ecc->size);
>
> In this case ecc->strength is unnecessarily recalculated at the end and
> ecc->strength isn't checked for zero in the initial calculation. Perhaps
> this block in nand_scan_tail should be patched again to preserve the
> original behaviour if ecc->strength or ecc->size are zero.
>
Exactly, I was talking about that snippet. I missed the fact that
ecc.strength is used to get bytes, and then re-calculated. Some comments
are definitely needed there.
> The only other in-kernel user of SOFT_BCH is sunxi_nand.c and it calculates
> ecc->bytes from ecc->size and ecc->strength itself, so it has defined all
> three values by this point.
>
>> So, I'd say you just need to specify the nand-ecc-mode in the devicetree
>> binding.
>>
>> The nand-ecc-strength and nand-ecc-step-size are meant for controllers
>> with hardware ECC support.
>
> Software BCH allows controllers without hardware support for multiple
> bit correction to be used with NAND devices that require multiple bit
> correction, so like a hardware controller it needs to know how many
> bits to correct.
>
Right, right.
I'd say you should require an ECC step size in your binding, instead of
assuming the 512-byte that gets set if the ecc.size is 0.
BTW, how does this patch deal with old devicetree files?
--
Ezequiel Garcia, VanguardiaSur
www.vanguardiasur.com.ar
--
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
