[PATCH v6 00/10] mtd: add datasheet's ECC information to nand_chip{}

[Brian Norris]

On 08/08/2013 08:58 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 16:06 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:33:35PM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
>>> Hi Artem & Brian:
>>>> Hi Huang and others,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Huang Shijie<b32955 at freescale.com>  wrote:
>>>>> 1.) Why add the ECC information to the nand_chip{} ?
>> ...
>>>> Reviewed-by: Brian Norris<computersforpeace at gmail.com>
>>>> Tested-by: Brian Norris<computersforpeace at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the work Huang.
>>>>
>>> Could you please merge this patch set?
>>
>> Thanks for the reminder. I haven't sorted through all the piles of
>> backed up stuff yet!
>>
>> I made a few minor changes (for checkpatch.pl, regarding
>> __attribute__((packed)), and to make the style a little more
>> easily-read) and tested the generic stuff on my platform. I've pushed
>> the series to l2-mtd.git. Thanks for the patience!
>
> I guess you can try aiaiai, I run it for all the patches I take to
> l2-mtd.git. It uses also coccinelle/smatch/sparse and other tools to
> verify the patches, not only checkpatch. And this git tree contains
> scripts and various defconfigs for various MTD drivers - the scripts run
> aiaiai.

Thanks, I actually already used it on his series :)

> For example, to check Huang's patches, I run something like:
>
> aiaiai-concat-mboxes ~/tmp/huang*.mbox | ./verify ../l2-mtd/ gpmi-nand
>
> where "huang*.mbox" is Huang's patch set.

What's the use of 'aiai-concat-mboxes' over a simple 'cat'? Just 
inserting the extra blank line, I guess? But if I have a concatenated 
mailbox, this is better:

./verify ../l2-mtd/ gpmi-name < ~/tmp/huang.mbox

> There are few minor issues in aiaiai, which I can fix if you hit them
> and complain. Also, I did not invest much time in making the user
> interface and experience very nice. But this can also be improved.

One issue (possibly related to the above question?) was that aiaia 
complained (via checkpatch.pl) about no sign-offs when I processed using 
the input redirection method on a multi-message mbox. I can take a 
closer look next time, but it's not a big deal, since I can verify this 
pretty easily.

Thanks again for the help and for the nice tools.

Brian