On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 01:35:52AM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2015-08-01 01:09, Brian Norris wrote: > >> +static int vf610_nfc_read_page(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip, > >> + uint8_t *buf, int oob_required, int page) > >> +{ > >> + int eccsize = chip->ecc.size; > >> + int stat; > >> + > >> + vf610_nfc_read_buf(mtd, buf, eccsize); > >> + > >> + if (oob_required) > >> + vf610_nfc_read_buf(mtd, chip->oob_poi, mtd->oobsize); > > > > To fix the bitflips issue above, you'll just want to unconditionally > > read the OOB (it's fine to ignore 'oob_required') and... > > > >> + > >> + stat = vf610_nfc_correct_data(mtd, buf); > > > > ...pass in chip->oob_poi as a third argument. > > > > Hm, this probably will have an effect on performance, since we usually > omit the OOB if not requested. You could test :) I don't really like performance claims without tests. (I say this because I added the oob_required flag myself, but just for functional purposes, not performance. Many drivers got by just fine by always copying the OOB data.) > I could fetch the OOB from the NAND > controllers SRAM only if necessary (if HW ECC status is not ok...). Does > this sound reasonable? That does. 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