On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:20:54PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 13:03 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > So... what if someone has already shipped the new chips that require
> > stronger ECC, without realising that legacy_set_geometry() is
> > insufficient? (And is legacy_set_geometry *actually* doing precisely the
> > same as 3.10/3.11?)
>
> Answering my own question: If the required ECC strength is known and the
> legacy ECC layout is insufficient, that's caused a failure since commit
> 92d0e09abeebd ("mtd: gpmi: add sanity check for the ECC") in 3.9, so I'm
> not worried about supporting that.
>
> And legacy_set_geometry() *is* doing what 3.11 did, verbatim.
>
> So the question is whether we want this "if legacy is sufficient then
> use it else use the new method" that you offer in v2 of the patch, or if
> a device-tree property is the better way to do it.
>
> I'm actually slightly in favour of the device-tree property. But since
> 3.12 is imminent I think the *best* option is just to do this to
> preserve the 3.11 behaviour, and worry about getting it right for 3.13:
Hi David:
I am ok with your patch. but we will meet a compiler warning, since
the set_geometry_by_ecc_info() is not referenced.
thanks
Huang Shijie
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c
> index 59ab069..a9830ff 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c
> @@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ static int legacy_set_geometry(struct gpmi_nand_data *this)
>
> int common_nfc_set_geometry(struct gpmi_nand_data *this)
> {
> - return set_geometry_by_ecc_info(this) ? 0 : legacy_set_geometry(this);
> + return legacy_set_geometry(this);
> }
>
> struct dma_chan *get_dma_chan(struct gpmi_nand_data *this)
>
>
> --
> dwmw2
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html