[PATCH 1/2] mtd: nand: automate NAND timings selection

[Boris Brezillon]

On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 13:09:32 +0200
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 08:51:46AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Sascha,
> > 
> > It feels weird to review his own patch, but I have a few comments. :)  
> 
> I know this feeling. Suddenly you have to criticise code you previously
> hoped to get through with ;)
> 
> > 
> > On Fri,  2 Sep 2016 14:42:28 +0200
> > Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> >   
> > > From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com>
> > > 
> > > The NAND framework provides several helpers to query timing modes supported
> > > by a NAND chip, but this implies that all NAND controller drivers have
> > > to implement the same timings selection dance.
> > > 
> > > Provide a common logic to select the best timings based on ONFI or  
> > > ->onfi_timing_mode_default information.    
> > > NAND controller willing to support timings adjustment should just
> > > implement the ->setup_data_interface() method.  
> > 
> > Now I remember one of the reason I did not post a v2 (apart from not
> > having the time).
> > 
> > If understand the ONFI spec correctly, when you reset the NAND chip,
> > you get back to SDR+timing-mode0. In the core we do not control when
> > the reset command (0xff) is issued, and this prevents us from
> > re-applying the correct timing mode after a reset.
> > 
> > Maybe we should provide a nand_reset() helper to hide this complexity,
> > and patch all ->cmdfunc(NAND_CMD_RESET) callers to call nand_reset()
> > instead.
> > 
> > Note that the interface+timing-mode config is not necessarily the only
> > thing we'll have to re-apply after a reset (especially on MLC NANDs), so
> > having place where we can put all operations that should be done after
> > a reset is a good thing.  
> 
> Ouch, there are indeed some things wrong in this patch. We iterate over
> all chips and set the timing mode for each:
> 
> +		if (modes != ONFI_TIMING_MODE_UNKNOWN) {
> +			/*
> +			 * FIXME: should we really set the timing mode on all
> +			 * dies?
> +			 */
> +			for (i = 0; i < chip->numchips; i++) {
> +				chip->select_chip(mtd, i);
> +				ret = chip->onfi_set_features(mtd, chip,
> +						ONFI_FEATURE_ADDR_TIMING_MODE,
> +						tmode_param);
> +			}
> +			chip->select_chip(mtd, -1);
> +		}
> +
> 
> Afterwards the code in nand_scan_ident() resets all chips while checking
> for a chip array, reverting the effect of the above code. Looking closer
> at it the above code has no effect anyway since it's executed when
> chip->numchips is not yet initialized and still 0.

Yep :-(.

> 
> I think providing a nand_reset() function is a good idea. I'll implement
> one and see what I end up with.

Thanks for looking into that, that's truly appreciated (I have so much
things on my plate lately that the NAND framework rework I planned are
constantly delayed).

Boris