Hi Christophe, Sorry for the delay, here are some answers from my previous comments. Maybe you already addressed them, in this case please ignore them. Also, please run and correct 'checkpatch.pl --strict' issues (mostly uses of uint8_t instead of u8 but also a warning about the compatible). Overall the driver is in a pretty good shape and should enter the next release. I'll apply the patches after -rc1 once I'll have your v3+ with everything corrected. [...] > >> index c7efc31..863662c 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/Kconfig > >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/Kconfig > >> @@ -541,4 +541,13 @@ config MTD_NAND_TEGRA > >> is supported. Extra OOB bytes when using HW ECC are currently > >> not supported. > >> >> +config MTD_NAND_STM32_FMC2 > >> + tristate "Support for NAND controller on STM32MP SoCs" > >> + depends on MACH_STM32MP157 || COMPILE_TEST > >> + help > >> + Enables support for NAND Flash chips on SoCs containing the FMC2 > >> + NAND controller. This controller is found on STM32MP SoCs. > >> + The driver supports a maximum 8k page size. HW ECC is enabled and > >> + supports a maximum 8-bit correction error per sector of 512 bytes. > > > HW ECC should not be enabled by default. 8-bit/512B of correctability > > is good but not that high and people might want to use software ECC in > > conjunction with raw accesses. > > Yes, I agree. The driver only supports NAND_ECC_HW mode. NAND_ECC_SOFT mode was not requested by customers and was not implemented. The driver could be improved later to support mode like NAND_ECC_SOFT or NAND_ECC_ON_DIE. Should I remove "HW ECC is enabled" from Kconfig description? Yes, please. [...] > >> +/* Select function */ > >> +static void stm32_fmc2_select_chip(struct nand_chip *chip, int chipnr) > >> +{ > >> + struct stm32_fmc2 *fmc2 = nand_get_controller_data(chip); > >> + struct dma_slave_config dma_cfg; > >> + > >> + if (chipnr < 0 || chipnr >= fmc2->ncs) > >> + return; > >> + > >> + if (fmc2->cs_used[chipnr] == fmc2->cs_sel) > >> + return; > >> + > >> + fmc2->cs_sel = fmc2->cs_used[chipnr]; > >> + > >> + if (fmc2->dma_tx_ch && fmc2->dma_rx_ch) { > >> + memset(&dma_cfg, 0, sizeof(dma_cfg)); > >> + dma_cfg.src_addr = fmc2->data_phys_addr[fmc2->cs_sel]; > >> + dma_cfg.dst_addr = fmc2->data_phys_addr[fmc2->cs_sel]; > >> + dma_cfg.src_addr_width = DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_4_BYTES; > >> + dma_cfg.dst_addr_width = DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_4_BYTES; > >> + dma_cfg.src_maxburst = 32; > >> + dma_cfg.dst_maxburst = 32; > >> + > >> + if (dmaengine_slave_config(fmc2->dma_tx_ch, &dma_cfg)) > >> + dev_warn(fmc2->dev, "tx DMA engine slave config failed\n"); > >> + > >> + if (dmaengine_slave_config(fmc2->dma_rx_ch, &dma_cfg)) > >> + dev_warn(fmc2->dev, "rx DMA engine slave config failed\n"); > >> + } > > > What if there are two NAND chips using different timing modes? You > > should probably reconfigure the timings registers, unless there are > > already a set of timing registers per CS? > > Yes, it's true. In case of 2 NAND chips, timings and pcr registers should have been reconfigured. But, the driver only supports one NAND chip connected to 1 or 2 CS. There was no requirement on our side to support 2 different NAND chips. I do not have a board to test such configuration, so i do not want to deliver this support without being able to test it on my side. The driver will be improved later to support 2 different NAND chips, in case this configuration is requested by customers. Sure, I'm not requesting you to support 2 NAND chips, I'm just requesting to write this driver in a manner so that adding support for a 2nd NAND chip would be easy thanks to a better software design. That's actually something that is done in the marvell_nand.c driver if you need inspiration. [...] > >> + > >> +void stm32_fmc2_read_data(struct nand_chip *chip, void *buf, > >> + unsigned int len, bool force_8bit) > >> +{ > >> + struct stm32_fmc2 *fmc2 = nand_get_controller_data(chip); > >> + void __iomem *io_addr_r = fmc2->data_base[fmc2->cs_sel]; > >> + u8 *p = buf; > >> + unsigned int i; > >> + > >> + if (force_8bit) > >> + goto read_8bit; > >> + > >> + if (IS_ALIGNED((u32)buf, sizeof(u32)) && IS_ALIGNED(len, sizeof(u32))) { > > > If you selected BOUNCE_BUFFER in the options, buf is supposedly > > aligned, or am I missing something? > > 2 FMC2 internal modes can be used: > - Sequencer mode (Patch 2/3): dmas are used and NAND_USE_BOUNCE_BUFFER option is selected. > - Manual mode (Patch 3/3): no dma channel is used and NAND_USE_BOUNCE_BUFFER is not selected. > Should i select NAND_USE_BOUNCE_BUFFER for sequencer and manual mode, and remove IS_ALIGNED test on buf? If it's only useful in manual mode after patch 3/3, then the logic for it should be in patch 3 also. Anyway, unless numbers show a significant drop off in the throughput (but I suppose the sequencer mode is faster anyway?) I think this is a good idea to always use the bounce buffer and keep the code simple. [...] > >> +static int stm32_fmc2_parse_dt(struct device *dev, > >> + struct stm32_fmc2 *fmc2) > >> +{ > >> + struct device_node *dn = dev->of_node; > >> + struct device_node *child; > >> + int nchips = of_get_child_count(dn); > >> + int ret = 0; > >> + > >> + if (!nchips) { > >> + dev_err(dev, "NAND chip not defined\n"); > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + } > >> + > >> + if (nchips > 1) { > > > If you have two CS, can't you have two NAND chips connected? > > > No HW board has been designed with 2 NAND chips connected. I am not able to test this configuration. The driver will be improved when i will be able to test such configuration. > Ok. Thanks, Miquèl ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/