On Sun, 10 May 2020 10:35:47 +0200 Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Boris, > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Sun, 10 May > 2020 09:02:30 +0200: > > > On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:13:38 +0200 > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > +static int anfc_len_to_steps(struct nand_chip *chip, unsigned int len) > > > +{ > > > + unsigned int steps = 1, pktsize = len; > > > + > > > + while (pktsize > ANFC_MAX_PKT_SIZE) { > > > + steps *= 2; > > > + pktsize = DIV_ROUND_UP(len, steps); > > > + } > > > > > > Same here, you shouldn't have a round_up() but instead complain if > > "len != pkt_size * steps" > > > > if (len % 4) > > return -ENOTSUPP; > > This is not possible, we need unaligned accesses for NAND detection. Duh, this really calls for a comment saying how wrong this is and how it should be fixed (discussions we had about data size constraints and the 'can-issue-more' flag on data_in/out instructions). > > > > > if (len < ANFC_MAX_PKT_SIZE) > > return len; > > > > for (steps = 2; steps < ANFC_MAX_STEPS; steps *= 2) { > > pkt_size = len / steps; > > if (pkt_size <= ANFC_MAX_PKT_SIZE) > > break; > > } > > > > if (pkt_size * steps != len) > > return -ENOTSUPP; > > > > return pkt_size; > > The rest looks fine, I will change it and also add these checks in > ->exec_op() check_nonly path. ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/