| Message ID | 571624EF.9060707@ti.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 19/04/16 15:41, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:30:39 +0300 > Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> wrote: > >> On 19/04/16 14:22, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> Hi Roger, >>> >>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 13:28:50 +0300 >>> Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> @@ -1921,6 +1927,9 @@ static int omap_nand_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>> nand_chip->ecc.correct = omap_correct_data; >>>>> mtd_set_ooblayout(mtd, &omap_ooblayout_ops); >>>>> oobbytes_per_step = nand_chip->ecc.bytes; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (nand_chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16) >>>>> + min_oobbytes = 1; >>>> >>>> Shouldn't this have been >>>> if (!(nand_chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16) >>>> min_oobbytes = 1; >>>> ? >>> >>> Yep. >>> >>>> >>>>> break; >>>>> >>>>> case OMAP_ECC_BCH4_CODE_HW_DETECTION_SW: >>>>> @@ -2038,10 +2047,8 @@ static int omap_nand_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> /* check if NAND device's OOB is enough to store ECC signatures */ >>>>> - min_oobbytes = (oobbytes_per_step * >>>>> - (mtd->writesize / nand_chip->ecc.size)) + >>>>> - (nand_chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16 ? >>>>> - BADBLOCK_MARKER_LENGTH : 1); >>>>> + min_oobbytes += (oobbytes_per_step * >>>>> + (mtd->writesize / nand_chip->ecc.size)); >>>>> if (mtd->oobsize < min_oobbytes) { >>>>> dev_err(&info->pdev->dev, >>>>> "not enough OOB bytes required = %d, available=%d\n", >>>>> >>>> >>>> After the above changes BCH with HW ECC worked fine but BCH with SW ECC still failed. >>>> I had to fix it up with the below patch. This is mainly because chip->ecc.steps wasn't >>>> yet initialized before calling nand_bch_init(). >>>> >>>> After the below patch it worked fine with bch4 (hw & sw), bch8 (hw & sw) and ham1. >>>> I couldn't yet verify bch16 though. >>> >> >> I just verified that bch16 works as well. >> >>> Thanks for the fix, but I'd prefer fixing the bug for all soft BCH >>> users. >>> >>> Could you try this patch? >> >> I tried your patch and it worked fine. > > Thanks, I'll provide a reworked nand/next branch soon. > BTW, is there anything to fix in my merge commit (the commit merging > your GPMC/OMAP changes in nand/next)? > I just replied in the other thread that the conflict resolution is fine. >> You will still need the below change to omap2.c >> >> -- >> cheers, >> -roger >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c >> index 0abfba6..33c8fde 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c >> @@ -1715,7 +1715,7 @@ static int omap_sw_ooblayout_free(struct mtd_info *mtd, int section, >> struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd); >> int off = BADBLOCK_MARKER_LENGTH; >> >> - if (section) >> + if (section >= chip->ecc.steps) >> return -ERANGE; > > Sorry but I don't get why we need that one. Don't we have a single > oobfree section starting at the end of the ECC sections? > > You are right. Nothing needs to be changed there then. Thanks :) cheers, -roger -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c index 0abfba6..33c8fde 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c @@ -1715,7 +1715,7 @@ static int omap_sw_ooblayout_free(struct mtd_info *mtd, int section, struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd); int off = BADBLOCK_MARKER_LENGTH; - if (section) + if (section >= chip->ecc.steps) return -ERANGE; /*