[PATCH v2] mtd: nand: Add support to use nand_base poi databuf as bounce buffer

[Huang Shijie]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 05:40:34PM -0400, Kamal Dasu wrote:
> nand_base can be passed a kmap()'d buffers from highmem by
> filesystems like jffs2. This results in failure to map the
> physical address of the DMA buffer on various contoller
> driver on different platforms. This change adds a chip option
> to use preallocated databuf as bounce buffers used in
> nand_do_read_ops() and nand_do_write_ops().
> This allows for specific nand controller driver to set this
> option as needed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev at gmail.com>
> ---
> 
> Changes since v1:
>  * Fix bytes to write calculation in nand_do_write_ops
> 
>  drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  include/linux/mtd/nand.h     |  5 +++++
>  2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> index 9d01c4d..d94242a 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> @@ -1501,6 +1501,7 @@ static int nand_do_read_ops(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from,
>  		mtd->oobavail : mtd->oobsize;
>  
>  	uint8_t *bufpoi, *oob, *buf;
> +	int use_bufpoi;
>  	unsigned int max_bitflips = 0;
>  	int retry_mode = 0;
>  	bool ecc_fail = false;
> @@ -1522,10 +1523,16 @@ static int nand_do_read_ops(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from,
>  
>  		bytes = min(mtd->writesize - col, readlen);
>  		aligned = (bytes == mtd->writesize);
> +		use_bufpoi = (chip->options & NAND_USE_BOUNCE_BUFFER) ?
> +				!virt_addr_valid(buf) : 0;
I met a compiler error here in the ARM platform.

I think you should add some header.
>  
>  		/* Is the current page in the buffer? */
>  		if (realpage != chip->pagebuf || oob) {
> -			bufpoi = aligned ? buf : chip->buffers->databuf;
> +			bufpoi = (aligned && !use_bufpoi) ? buf :
> +				chip->buffers->databuf;
> +
> +			if (use_bufpoi && aligned)
> +				pr_debug("%s: using bounce buffer\n", __func__);
print more info here, such as:
		pr_debug("%s: using bounce buffer for buf:%p\n", __func__, buf);

>  
>  read_retry:
>  			chip->cmdfunc(mtd, NAND_CMD_READ0, 0x00, page);
> @@ -1547,7 +1554,7 @@ read_retry:
>  				ret = chip->ecc.read_page(mtd, chip, bufpoi,
>  							  oob_required, page);
>  			if (ret < 0) {
> -				if (!aligned)
> +				if (!aligned || use_bufpoi)
>  					/* Invalidate page cache */
>  					chip->pagebuf = -1;
>  				break;
> @@ -1556,7 +1563,7 @@ read_retry:
>  			max_bitflips = max_t(unsigned int, max_bitflips, ret);
>  
>  			/* Transfer not aligned data */
> -			if (!aligned) {
> +			if (!aligned || use_bufpoi) {

  In actually, the " if (!aligned || use_bufpoi) " is equal to 
	  "if (bufpoi == chip->buffers->databuf)) {"

  I am not sure which is more readable. :)

  But I prefer to the later.

  Let Brian to judge it.

  thanks
  Huang Shijie