Re: [PATCH v5 09/12] mtd: rawnand: ingenic: Make use of ecc-engine property

[Paul Cercueil]

Hi,

Le ven. 15 mars 2019 à 9:40, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
a écrit :
> Hi Paul,
>
> Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 13 Mar 2019 
> 23:22:56
> +0100:
>
> >  Use the 'ecc-engine' standard property instead of the custom
> >  'ingenic,bch-controller' custom property, which is now deprecated.
> >
> >  Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >  ---
> >
> >  Notes:
> >      v5: New patch
> >
> >   drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> >  diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c 
> > b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c
> >  index d7f3a8c3abea..30436ca6628a 100644
> >  --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c
> >  +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/ingenic/ingenic_ecc.c
> >  @@ -82,9 +82,9 @@ static struct ingenic_ecc *ingenic_ecc_get(struct 
> > device_node *np)
> >
> >   /**
> >    * of_ingenic_ecc_get() - get the ECC controller from a DT node
> >  - * @of_node: the node that contains a bch-controller property.
> >  + * @of_node: the node that contains a ecc-engine property.
>
> Would "contains an ecc-engine property" be better English?
>
> I am not sure what is the rule when it comes to plain English with
> variable names. However if you agree, no need to re-send the series, I
> can fix it when applying.

Yes, that's better.

> BTW, I added hw ECC engines support to my generic ECC engine
> implementation, but migrating the whole raw NAND subsystem (using I/O
> requests like in the SPI-NAND core, adding prepare/finish_io_req 
> hooks)
> is going to be much more invasive than initially expected, so I am not
> sure I will finish the migration any time soon.

Ok, I will follow the development then.

> Thanks,
> Miquèl

One thing I notice with my patchset: it works perfectly on top of 4.20,
but on top of 5.0 I am unable to erase any eraseblock with flash_erase.
I get -EIO every time. I'm trying to debug it but didn't go very far,
it looks like nand_status_op() gives me a status of 0xff. Do you know
what could have changed between 4.20 and 5.0 that could trigger this 
bug?

Second thing, everytime I reboot it fails to find the BBT. That's 
because
the BBT marker is overwritten by the ECC data as they occupy the same 
area
in the OOB space. Is there a way to move the BBT marker? Or should I use
NAND_BBT_NO_OOB then? Since the eraseblocks where the BBTs are located
is used in my system partition, won't that conflict with the data?

Thanks,
-Paul