Hi Masahiro, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Fri, 8 Feb 2019 17:35:32 +0900: > HI Miquel, > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 10:02 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Masahiro, > > > > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu, 7 Feb > > 2019 19:46:54 +0900: > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 7:16 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Masahiro, > > > > > > > > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu, 7 Feb > > > > 2019 18:57:56 +0900: > > > > > > > > > nand_scan_ident() calls onfi_fill_data_interface() at its entry > > > > > to set up the initial timing parameters. > > > > > > > > > > The timing parameters are needed not only for ->setup_data_interface(), > > > > > but also for giving the correct delay to NAND_OP_WAIT_RDY, for example. > > > > > > > > > > If the driver sets the NAND_KEEP_TIMINGS flag, or does not support > > > > > ->setup_data_interface() hook, those parameters will never updated. > > > > > > > > ^ be > > > > > > Will fix (if v2 is welcome) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before nand_detect(), we never know whether the chip is ONFi or not. > > > > > So, onfi_fill_data_interface() has to assume the worst case, i.e. > > > > > non-ONFi. > > > > > > > > s/ONFi/ONFI/? > > > > > > Will fix. > > > > > > Looks like I was misunderstanding > > > maybe because the letter 'I' in the logo > > > (http://www.onfi.org/) > > > looks like a lowercase... > > > > > > > > > > Oh right. I don't know what's best. Pick your favorite :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After nand_detect(), if the chip turns out to be ONFi-compliant, > > > > > we can optimize tPROG_max, tBERS_max, etc. > > > > > > > > > > Call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again. > > > > > > > > Sorry but I don't get why this is needed as there is the same call at > > > > the top of this function. Can you be more specific on where/when the > > > > missing call produces a failure? > > > > > > > > > onfi_fill_data_interface() sets different values > > > for tPROG_max, tBER_max, tR_max, tCCS_min > > > depending on whether the chip is ONFI or not. > > > > > > For the first call, onfi_fill_data_interface() > > > chooses the else-part since we never know > > > the chip specification at this point. > > > > > > If we call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again > > > after nand_detect(), it may choose the if-part. > > > > > > > > > If a driver supports ->setup_data_interface(), > > > nand_init_data_interface() will set the optimal > > > timing parameters anyway. > > > > > > But, if a driver does not support ->setup_data_interface(), > > > it will not happen since nand_has_setup_data_iface() returns false. > > > > And I think this is the expected behavior. Calling again > > onfi_fill_data_interface() would probably enhance a bit the timings. > > The effect is that later exchanges with the NAND chip would be just a > > bit faster. But if you care about performance, then why not implementing > > ->setup_data_interface()? Even a dummy implementation would do the > > trick: only accept timing mode 0 without any changes on the controller > > side. > > > My driver (denali) does implement ->setup_data_interface(). Fortunately, yes! :) > > When I was testing this thoroughly on my board, > I noticed the timing parameters were slightly changed > after nand_detect() detected ONFI chip. I see. > > > Unless you give me a use case where this is not possible, I don't think > > it is worth changing this path. > > Only the use case I can come up with is when NAND_KEEP_TIMINGS was set. > But, it is just a matter of timeout values. > > So, please throw away this patch. Ok! Thanks anyway for the proposal! Miquèl ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/