On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > > > ---8<--- > > > > > > Author: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Tue Jan 19 12:27:07 2021 +0100 > > > > > > wip: fix omap > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Thanks for fixing this. > > > > I tested your patch, and I no longer get a Panic and the MTD device > > appears to appear correctly: > > > > mtdoops: mtd device (mtddev=name/number) must be supplied > > omap2-nand 30000000.nand: GPIO lookup for consumer rb > > omap2-nand 30000000.nand: using device tree for GPIO lookup > > of_get_named_gpiod_flags: parsed 'rb-gpios' property of node > > '/ocp@68000000/gpmc@6e000000/nand@0,0[0]' - status (0) > > gpio gpiochip6: Persistence not supported for GPIO 0 > > nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0x2c, Chip ID: 0xbc > > nand: Micron MT29F4G16ABBDA3W > > nand: 512 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 64 > > nand: using OMAP_ECC_BCH8_CODE_HW_DETECTION_SW > > 6 cmdlinepart partitions found on MTD device omap2-nand.0 > > Creating 6 MTD partitions on "omap2-nand.0": > > ... > > Good to know. Can you just tell me if the values of > - chip->ecc.bytes vs. engine_conf->code_size > - chip->ecc.steps vs. engine_conf->nsteps > are the same in both cases (your patch and mine)? Otherwise your data > might appear corrupted somehow. I didn't fully vet my hack, beyond eliminating the Kernel panic, so I felt more comfortable comparing the values to a stable release. I compared the values in 5.10 to 5.11-rc4 + your patch, and the number of steps and oobregion->length are identical between them. 5.10.5: chip->ecc.steps = 4 oobregion->length = d 5.11-rc4 + patch: engine_conf->nsteps = 4 oobregion->length = d adam > > > > > When you submit a formal patch, CC me on the patch, and I'll respond > > with a 'tested-by' > > Of course, I'll also add a Reported-by. > > Thanks, > Miquèl
