RE: [PATCH] mtd: atmel_nand: fix access to 16 bit NAND devices

[Voss, Nikolaus]

Artem Bityutskiy wrote on 2012-01-27:
> On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 10:16 +0100, Nikolaus Voss wrote:
>> commit fb5427508abbd635e877fabdf55795488119c2d6 optimizes PIO
>> NAND accesses by using IO memcpy instead of IO read/write
>> repeated functions.
>> 
>> This breaks access to 16 bit NAND devices as memcpy_fromio()/toio()
>> _always_ use byte accesses (see arch/arm/kernel/io.c), so with
>> 16 bit NAND, one byte gets lost per NAND access cycle and NAND
>> address count is wrong.
>> 
>> Using memcpy() instead of the IO memcpy functions fixes this, but
>> depends on correct word alignment of the buffer and length has to
>> be a multiple of four, otherwise it might issue byte accesses and
>> possibly break 16 bit NAND access (cf arch/arm/lib/copy_template.S).
>> 
>> Memcpy variants seem to be the wrong approach here, since the
>> NAND controller doesn't make the NAND appear as truely randomly
>> accessible memory (as opposed to the DRAM controller which does
>> exactly that).
>> 
>> So, my proposal is to use 32 bit IO read/write (and let SMC
>> map it to 8 bit or 16 bit NAND accesses) and account for
>> length % 4 > 0 with two additional IO read/writes.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Nikolaus Voss <n.voss@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Why not to revert fb5427508abbd635e877fabdf55795488119c2d6 instead, it
> is in my opinion a bit more readable?

No objections. I've tried to save the idea of
fb5427508abbd635e877fabdf55795488119c2d6 but that length % 4 > 0 stuff
uglifies it a little bit...

Niko


èº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËlzwm…ébëæìr¸›zX§»®w¥Š{ayºÊÚë,j­¢f£¢·hš‹àz¹®w¥¢¸¢·¦j:+v‰¨ŠwèjØm¶Ÿÿ¾«‘êçzZ+ƒùšŽŠÝj"ú!¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^¶m§ÿðÃnÆàþY&—