Hi Abhishek,
On Mon, 28 May 2018 15:40:52 +0530, Abhishek Sahu
<absahu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2018-05-28 12:33, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Abhishek,
> > >> >> /* implements ecc->read_page() */
> >> >> static int qcom_nandc_read_page(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct >> nand_chip *chip,
> >> >> uint8_t *buf, int oob_required, int page)
> >> >> @@ -2118,6 +2083,7 @@ static int qcom_nandc_block_bad(struct mtd_info >> *mtd, loff_t ofs)
> >> >> struct nand_ecc_ctrl *ecc = &chip->ecc;
> >> >> int page, ret, bbpos, bad = 0;
> >> >> u32 flash_status;
> >> >> + u8 *bbm_bytes_buf = chip->data_buf;
> >> >> >> page = (int)(ofs >> chip->page_shift) & chip->pagemask;
> >> >> >> @@ -2128,11 +2094,31 @@ static int qcom_nandc_block_bad(struct >> mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs)
> >> >> * that contains the BBM
> >> >> */
> >> >> host->use_ecc = false;
> >> >> + bbpos = mtd->writesize - host->cw_size * (ecc->steps - 1);
> >> > > Are we sure there is no layout with only 1 step?
> >> >> All the layouts are such that, the BBM will come in
> >> first byte of spare area.
> >> >> For 4 bit ECC, the cw_size is 528 so for 2K page
> >> >> 2048 - 528 * 3 = 464
> > > My question was more about small page NANDs. But I suppose it works
> > too if ecc->steps == 1.
> >
> Correct Miquel.
>
> >> >> So for last CW, the 464 is BBM (i.e 2048th byte) in
> >> full page.
> >> >> > >> >> clear_bam_transaction(nandc);
> >> >> - ret = copy_last_cw(host, page);
> >> >> - if (ret)
> >> >> + clear_read_regs(nandc);
> >> >> +
> >> >> + set_address(host, host->cw_size * (ecc->steps - 1), page);
> >> >> + update_rw_regs(host, 1, true);
> >> >> +
> >> >> + /*
> >> >> + * The last codeword data will be copied from NAND device to NAND
> >> >> + * controller internal HW buffer. Copy only required BBM size bytes
> >> >> + * from this HW buffer to bbm_bytes_buf which is present at
> >> >> + * bbpos offset.
> >> >> + */
> >> >> + nandc_set_read_loc(nandc, 0, bbpos, host->bbm_size, 1);
> >> >> + config_nand_single_cw_page_read(nandc);
> >> >> + read_data_dma(nandc, FLASH_BUF_ACC + bbpos, bbm_bytes_buf,
> >> >> + host->bbm_size, 0);
> >> >> +
> >> >> + ret = submit_descs(nandc);
> >> >> + free_descs(nandc);
> >> >> + if (ret) {
> >> >> + dev_err(nandc->dev, "failed to copy bad block bytes\n");
> >> >> goto err;
> >> >> + }
> >> >> >> flash_status = le32_to_cpu(nandc->reg_read_buf[0]);
> >> >> >> @@ -2141,12 +2127,10 @@ static int qcom_nandc_block_bad(struct >> mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs)
> >> >> goto err;
> >> >> }
> >> >> >> - bbpos = mtd->writesize - host->cw_size * (ecc->steps - 1);
> >> >> -
> >> >> - bad = nandc->data_buffer[bbpos] != 0xff;
> >> >> + bad = bbm_bytes_buf[0] != 0xff;
> >> > > This is suspect as it still points to the beginning of the data buffer.
> >> > Can you please check you did not meant bbm_bytes_buf[bbpos]?
> >> >
> >> The main thing here is
> >> nandc_set_read_loc(nandc, 0, bbpos, host->bbm_size, 1);
> >> >> After reading one complete CW from NAND, the data will be still
> >> in NAND HW buffer.
> >> >> The above register tells that we need to read data from
> >> bbpos of size host->bbm_size (which is 1 byte for 8 bus witdh
> >> and 2 byte for 16 bus width) in bbm_bytes_buf.
> > > I see: idx 0 in bbm_bytes_buf is the data at offset bbpos. Then
> > it's ok.
> > >> >> So bbm_bytes_buf[0] will contain the BBM first byte.
> >> and bbm_bytes_buf[1] will contain the BBM second byte.
> >> >> Regards,
> >> Abhishek
> >> >> >> >> if (chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16)
> >> >> - bad = bad || (nandc->data_buffer[bbpos + 1] != 0xff);
> >> >> + bad = bad || (bbm_bytes_buf[1] != 0xff);
> > > Sorry, my mistake, I did not see the above line.
> > > However, technically, the BBM could be located in the first, second or
> > last page of the block. You should check the three of them are 0xFF
> > before declaring the block is not bad.
> > > The more I look at the function, the more I wonder if you actually need
> > it. Why does the generic nand_block_bad() implementation in the core
> > do not fit?
>
> The BBM bytes can be accessed in raw mode only for QCOM NAND
> Contoller. We started with following patch for initial patches
>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/508565/
>
> I am also not very much sure, how can we go ahead now.
> Ideally we need to use generic function only which
> requires raw_read.
>
I see, thanks for pointing this thread.
Well for now then let's keep our driver-specific implementation.
I will just ask you to do a consistent check as requested above (you
can copy code from the core) and add a comment above this function
explaining why it is needed (what you just told me).
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
