Hi Miquel, On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:13 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Masahiro, > > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Tue, 12 Mar > 2019 20:07:27 +0900: > > > 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? > > > > > > What I don't like is the function pointer as a function parameter. This is a usual way to handle callback. > You > can use the functions defined statically if you prefer as long as the > parameter is just a boolean for instance? I still do not understand your concern, but if you ban the use of function pointer, the following is the best I can do since there are 4 hooks depending on the combination of oob/raw, write/read. if (oob) { if (write) return nand_change_write_column_op(chip, offset, buf, len, false); else return nand_change_read_column_op(chip, offset, buf, len, false); } if (write) memcpy(denali->buf + offset, buf, len); else memcpy(buf, denali->buf + offset, len); return 0; BTW, when are .read_page_raw / .write_page_raw used? Currently, I use "whole page access && memcpy" for better performance. If those hooks are rarely used, I use nand_change_write_column_op / nand_change_read_column_op, which will reduce the if-conditional. > > Thanks, > Miquèl > > ______________________________________________________ > Linux MTD discussion mailing list > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/ -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/