On 2018-06-07 18:07, Miquel Raynal wrote:
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 :)
Thanks Miquel for confirming.
I will update accordingly.
Also, one more question.
Shall I make other functions (nand_check_ecc_caps, nand_maximize_ecc
and nand_match_ecc_req) static. Since currently,
Denali NAND driver was only using these functions.
And Now, this nand_ecc_choose_conf will be help
in all the cases.
For nand_check_ecc_caps: call nand_ecc_choose_conf with
chip->ecc.size && chip->ecc.strength
For nand_maximize_ecc: call nand_ecc_choose_conf with
NAND_ECC_MAXIMIZE
For other cases, nand_match_ecc_req will be called.
So we will have one external function which will be
easy to maintain in future.
Thanks,
Abhishek
> > 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
