Hi Abhishek,
On Mon, 28 May 2018 11:16:29 +0530, Abhishek Sahu
<absahu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2018-05-26 14:12, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Abhishek,
> > > On Fri, 25 May 2018 17:51:29 +0530, Abhishek Sahu
> > <absahu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> commit 2c8f8afa7f92 ("mtd: nand: add generic helpers to check,
> >> match, maximize ECC settings") provides generic helpers which
> >> drivers can use for setting up ECC parameters.
> >> >> Since same board can have different ECC strength nand chips so
> >> following is the logic for setting up ECC strength and ECC step
> >> size, which can be used by most of the drivers.
> >> >> 1. If both ECC step size and ECC strength are already set
> >> (usually by DT) then just check whether this setting
> >> is supported by NAND controller.
> >> 2. If NAND_ECC_MAXIMIZE is set, then select maximum ECC strength
> >> supported by NAND controller.
> >> 3. Otherwise, try to match the ECC step size and ECC strength closest
> >> to the chip's requirement. If available OOB size can't fit the chip
> >> requirement then select maximum ECC strength which can be fit with
> >> available OOB size.
> >> >> This patch introduces nand_ecc_choose_conf function which calls the
> >> required helper functions for the above logic. The drivers can use
> >> this single function instead of calling the 3 helper functions
> >> individually.
> >> >> CC: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sahu <absahu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> * Changes from v2:
> >> >> 1. Renamed function to nand_ecc_choose_conf.
> >> 2. Minor code reorganization to remove warning and 2 function calls
> >> for nand_maximize_ecc.
> >> >> * Changes from v1:
> >> NEW PATCH
> >> >> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 42 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h | 3 +++
> >> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c >> b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> >> index 72f3a89..e52019d 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> >> @@ -6249,6 +6249,37 @@ int nand_maximize_ecc(struct nand_chip *chip,
> >> }
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nand_maximize_ecc);
> >> >> +/**
> >> + * nand_ecc_choose_conf - Set the ECC strength and ECC step size
> >> + * @chip: nand chip info structure
> >> + * @caps: ECC engine caps info structure
> >> + * @oobavail: OOB size that the ECC engine can use
> >> + *
> >> + * Choose the ECC configuration according to following logic
> >> + *
> >> + * 1. If both ECC step size and ECC strength are already set (usually >> by DT)
> >> + * then check if it is supported by this controller.
> >> + * 2. If NAND_ECC_MAXIMIZE is set, then select maximum ECC strength.
> >> + * 3. Otherwise, try to match the ECC step size and ECC strength >> closest
> >> + * to the chip's requirement. If available OOB size can't fit the >> chip
> >> + * requirement then fallback to the maximum ECC step size and ECC >> strength.
> >> + *
> >> + * On success, the chosen ECC settings are set.
> >> + */
> >> +int nand_ecc_choose_conf(struct nand_chip *chip,
> >> + const struct nand_ecc_caps *caps, int oobavail)
> >> +{
> >> + if (chip->ecc.size && chip->ecc.strength)
> >> + return nand_check_ecc_caps(chip, caps, oobavail);
> >> +
> >> + if (!(chip->ecc.options & NAND_ECC_MAXIMIZE) &&
> >> + !nand_match_ecc_req(chip, caps, oobavail))
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> + return nand_maximize_ecc(chip, caps, oobavail);
> > > I personally don't mind if nand_maximize_ecc() is called twice in
> > the function if it clarifies the logic. Maybe the following will be
> > more clear for the user?
>
> Thanks Miquel.
> Both the implementations are fine.
> The above implementation (which was in Denali NAND driver) code was also
> clear. We can go for any of these implementation.
>
> Shall I update this ?
Yes, please :)
>
> > > if (chip->ecc.size && chip->ecc.strength)
> > return nand_check_ecc_caps(chip, caps, oobavail);
> > > if (chip->ecc.options & NAND_ECC_MAXIMIZE)
> > return nand_maximize_ecc(chip, caps, oobavail);
> > > if (!nand_match_ecc_req(chip, caps, oobavail))
> > return 0;
> > > return nand_maximize_ecc(chip, caps, oobavail);
> > > Also, I'm not sure we should just error out when nand_check_ecc_caps()
> > fails. What about something more robust, like:
> >
> But again, It will lead in overriding the DT ECC strength parameter.
> We started our discussion from that point. :-)
As Boris said, let's error out instead of overriding the DT ECC
parameters.
Thanks,
Miquèl
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
