Hi Priit, On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 08:43:05 +0200 Priit Laes <plaes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 23:25 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > ecclayout->oobavail is just redundant with the mtd->oobavail field. > > Moreover, it prevents static const definition of ecc layouts since > > the > > NAND framework is calculating this value based on the ecclayout- > > >oobfree > > field. > > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c | 5 ++- > > drivers/mtd/mtdswap.c | 16 ++++----- > > drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c | 3 -- > > drivers/mtd/nand/docg4.c | 1 - > > drivers/mtd/nand/hisi504_nand.c | 1 - > > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 12 +++---- > > drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c | 16 ++++----- > > drivers/mtd/tests/oobtest.c | 49 +++++++++++++-- > > ------------ > > drivers/staging/mt29f_spinand/mt29f_spinand.c | 1 - > > fs/jffs2/wbuf.c | 6 ++-- > > include/linux/mtd/mtd.h | 1 - > > 11 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-) > > > [..] > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c > > b/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c > > index 35d78f7..a906ec2 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c > > @@ -845,9 +845,6 @@ static struct nand_ecclayout *brcmnand_create_layout(int ecc_level, > > break; > > } > > out: > > - /* Sum available OOB */ > > - for (i = 0; i < MTD_MAX_OOBFREE_ENTRIES_LARGE; i++) > > - layout->oobavail += layout->oobfree[i].length; > > return layout; > > } > > You can get rid of the 'out' label and replace the single goto in this > function with 'return layout'. Yep, I'll fix that. > > [...] > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > > b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > > index 0748a13..1107f5c1 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > > @@ -2037,7 +2037,7 @@ static int nand_do_read_oob(struct mtd_info > > *mtd, loff_t from, > > stats = mtd->ecc_stats; > > > > if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB) > > - len = chip->ecc.layout->oobavail; > > + len = mtd->oobavail; > > else > > len = mtd->oobsize; > > > > @@ -2728,7 +2728,7 @@ static int nand_do_write_oob(struct mtd_info > > *mtd, loff_t to, > > __func__, (unsigned int)to, (int)ops- > > >ooblen); > > > > if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB) > > - len = chip->ecc.layout->oobavail; > > + len = mtd->oobavail; > > else > > len = mtd->oobsize; > > > [...] > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c > > b/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c > > index 43b3392..d70bbfd 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c > > @@ -1125,7 +1125,7 @@ static int onenand_mlc_read_ops_nolock(struct > > mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from, > > (int)len); > > > > if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB) > > - oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail; > > + oobsize = mtd->oobavail; > > else > > oobsize = mtd->oobsize; > > > > @@ -1230,7 +1230,7 @@ static int onenand_read_ops_nolock(struct > > mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from, > > (int)len); > > > > if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB) > > - oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail; > > + oobsize = mtd->oobavail; > > else > > oobsize = mtd->oobsize; > > > > @@ -1365,7 +1365,7 @@ static int onenand_read_oob_nolock(struct > > mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from, > > ops->oobretlen = 0; > > > > if (mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB) > > - oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail; > > + oobsize = mtd->oobavail; > > else > > oobsize = mtd->oobsize; > > > > @@ -1887,7 +1887,7 @@ static int onenand_write_ops_nolock(struct > > mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, > > return 0; > > > > if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB) > > - oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail; > > + oobsize = mtd->oobavail; > > else > > oobsize = mtd->oobsize; > > > > @@ -2063,7 +2063,7 @@ static int onenand_write_oob_nolock(struct > > mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, > > ops->oobretlen = 0; > > > > if (mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB) > > - oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail; > > + oobsize = mtd->oobavail; > > else > > oobsize = mtd->oobsize; > > This identical construction seems to occur multiple times in multiple > files. Would it make sense to create a macro for it? Right, I'll make another patch move this logic into an inline function. Thanks for the review. Boris -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
