Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] mtd: rawnand: denali: refactor syndrome layout handling for raw access

[Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Miquel,


On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 7:54 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Tue, 12 Mar
> 2019 19:51:21 +0900:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 7:28 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Masahiro,
> > >
> > > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Tue, 12 Mar
> > > 2019 17:44:43 +0900:
> > >
> > > > The Denali IP adopts the syndrome page layout (payload and ECC are
> > > > interleaved). The *_page_raw() and *_oob() callbacks are complicated
> > > > because they must hide the underlying layout used by the hardware,
> > > > and always return contiguous in-band and out-of-band data.
> > > >
> > > > Currently, similar code is duplicated to reorganize the data layout.
> > > > For example, denali_read_page_raw() and denali_write_page_raw() look
> > > > almost the same.
> > > >
> > > > The idea for refactoring is to split the code into two parts:
> > > >   [1] conversion of page layout
> > > >   [2] what to do at every ECC chunk boundary
> > > >
> > > > For [1], I wrote denali_raw_payload_op() and denali_raw_oob_op().
> > > > They manipulate data for the Denali controller's specific page layout
> > > > of in-band, out-of-band, respectively.
> > > >
> > > > The difference between write and read is just the operation at
> > > > ECC chunk boundaries. For example, denali_read_oob() calls
> > > > nand_change_read_column_op(), whereas denali_write_oob() calls
> > > > nand_change_write_column_op(). So, I implemented [2] as a callback
> > > > passed into [1].
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > >  static int denali_read_page_raw(struct nand_chip *chip, uint8_t *buf,
> > > >                               int oob_required, int page)
> > > >  {
> > > > +     struct denali_nand_info *denali = to_denali(chip);
> > > >       struct mtd_info *mtd = nand_to_mtd(chip);
> > > > -     struct denali_nand_info *denali = mtd_to_denali(mtd);
> > > > -     int writesize = mtd->writesize;
> > > > -     int oobsize = mtd->oobsize;
> > > > -     int ecc_steps = chip->ecc.steps;
> > > > -     int ecc_size = chip->ecc.size;
> > > > -     int ecc_bytes = chip->ecc.bytes;
> > > >       void *tmp_buf = denali->buf;
> > > > -     int oob_skip = denali->oob_skip_bytes;
> > > > -     size_t size = writesize + oobsize;
> > > > -     int ret, i, pos, len;
> > > > +     size_t size = mtd->writesize + mtd->oobsize;
> > > > +     int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +     if (!buf)
> > > > +             return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > >       ret = denali_data_xfer(chip, tmp_buf, size, page, 1, 0);
> > > >       if (ret)
> > > >               return ret;
> > > >
> > > > -     /* Arrange the buffer for syndrome payload/ecc layout */
> > > > -     if (buf) {
> > > > -             for (i = 0; i < ecc_steps; i++) {
> > > > -                     pos = i * (ecc_size + ecc_bytes);
> > > > -                     len = ecc_size;
> > > > -
> > > > -                     if (pos >= writesize)
> > > > -                             pos += oob_skip;
> > > > -                     else if (pos + len > writesize)
> > > > -                             len = writesize - pos;
> > > > -
> > > > -                     memcpy(buf, tmp_buf + pos, len);
> > > > -                     buf += len;
> > > > -                     if (len < ecc_size) {
> > > > -                             len = ecc_size - len;
> > > > -                             memcpy(buf, tmp_buf + writesize + oob_skip,
> > > > -                                    len);
> > > > -                             buf += len;
> > > > -                     }
> > > > -             }
> > > > -     }
> > > > +     ret = denali_raw_payload_op(chip, buf, denali_memcpy_in, tmp_buf);
> > >
> > > Honestly, I still don't like passing denali_memcpy_in/out as parameter.
> > >
> > > Besides that, once you'll have added helpers to avoid abusing the
> > > ternary operator in 4/9, the rest looks fine by me.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Do you have any suggestion?
>
> Maybe register these two helpers at probe as controller specific hooks,
> then just pass an in/out boolean to the function?
>

Sorry, I do not understand.

Are you suggesting to do like follows in probe ?

denali->change_column_read_raw = denali_memcpy_in;
denali->change_column_write_raw = denali_memcpy_out;
denali->change_column_read_oob = denali_change_read_column_op;
denali->change_column_write_oob = denali_change_write_column_op;


All the 4 hooks are always needed
regardless of any probed features.


The result is just textual replacement
denali_* with denali->*.

What's the point of copying fixed function addresses
to denali structure?


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/