On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 09:51:30AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 2019 09:33:02 +0200 > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 May 2019 08:59:48 +0200 > > Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 09:15:21PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/internals.h b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/internals.h > > > > index fbf6ca015cd7..a204f9d7e123 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/internals.h > > > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/internals.h > > > > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static inline int nand_exec_op(struct nand_chip *chip, > > > > if (!nand_has_exec_op(chip)) > > > > return -ENOTSUPP; > > > > > > > > - if (WARN_ON(op->cs >= chip->numchips)) > > > > + if (WARN_ON(op->cs >= nanddev_ntargets(&chip->base))) > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > This warning triggers when I apply my gpmi nand exec_op series. > > > > > > The gpmi driver calls: > > > > > > ret = nand_scan(chip, GPMI_IS_MX6(this) ? 2 : 1); > > > > > > This ends up in nand_scan_ident() with maxchips = 2. Here nand_detect() > > > is called which sets memorg->ntargets = 1; Later in nand_scan_ident() we > > > have: > > > > > > for (i = 1; i < maxchips; i++) { > > > > This loop should be fixed to test against nanddev_ntargets() instead of > > maxchips. > > Nevermind, I see what you mean. I guess we should set ->ntargets to > maxchips before entering this loop. Okay, you got the same conclusion in the meantime ;) Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/