On 20/05/2014 21:21, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:49:42AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
>> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 06:47:22PM +0200, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
>>> On 09/05/2014 18:03, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>>>> On 12 Mar 07:07 PM, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/sunxi_nand.c
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,1276 @@
>> ...
>>>>> +static int sunxi_nand_ecc_init(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_ecc_ctrl *ecc,
>>>>> + struct device_node *np)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct nand_chip *nand = mtd->priv;
>>>>> + int ecc_step_size, ecc_strength;
>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + ecc_step_size = of_get_nand_ecc_step_size(np);
>>>>> + ecc_strength = of_get_nand_ecc_strength(np);
>>>>> + if (ecc_step_size > 0 && ecc_strength > 0) {
>>>>> + ecc->size = ecc_step_size;
>>>>> + ecc->strength = ecc_strength;
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + ecc->size = nand->ecc_step_ds;
>>>>> + ecc->strength = nand->ecc_strength_ds;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>> Shouldn't you check the devicetree value is not weaker than the ONFI-obtained?
>>> I can definitely do that.
>> You can do that here, but take a look at the discussion Ezequiel and I
>> had about this:
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/67462
>>
>> We probably don't want to be doing anything drastic like overriding the
>> device tree configuration. Instead, we might want to stick a warning
>> into the core nand_base code that does the proper comparison of the
>> '*_ds' values with the actual values chosen in
>> chip->ecc->{size,strength}. The comparison is kind of subtle, actually,
>> so it'd be good to do it exactly once for everyone.
Fair enough, I'll follow your suggestions on this specific point ;)
> I forgot, Ezequiel already submitted this. I'll look at it soon:
>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/348901/
Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
