[PATCH 5/5] mtd: nand: add ->exec_op() implementation

[Miquel RAYNAL]

Hi Boris,

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:50:53 +0100
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com> wrote:

> Hi Miquel,
> 
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:25:38 +0100
> Miquel RAYNAL <miquel.raynal at free-electrons.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > > > b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c index 52965a8aeb2c..46bf31aff909
> > > > 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > > > @@ -689,6 +689,59 @@ static void nand_wait_status_ready(struct
> > > > mtd_info *mtd, unsigned long timeo) };
> > > >  
> > > >  /**
> > > > + * nand_soft_waitrdy - Read the status waiting for it to be
> > > > ready
> > > > + * @chip: NAND chip structure
> > > > + * @timeout_ms: Timeout in ms
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Poll the status using ->exec_op() until it is ready unless
> > > > it takes too
> > > > + * much time.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * This helper is intended to be used by drivers without R/B
> > > > pin available to
> > > > + * poll for the chip status until ready and may be called at
> > > > any time in the
> > > > + * middle of any set of instruction. The READ_STATUS just need
> > > > to ask a single
> > > > + * time for it and then any read will return the status. Once
> > > > the READ_STATUS
> > > > + * cycles are done, the function will send a READ0 command to
> > > > cancel the
> > > > + * "READ_STATUS state" and let the normal flow of operation to
> > > > continue.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * This helper *cannot* send a WAITRDY command or ->exec_op()
> > > > implementations      
> > > 
> > > 					  ^ instruction
> > >     
> > > > + * using it will enter an infinite loop.      
> > > 
> > > Hm, not sure why this would be the case, but okay. Maybe you
> > > should move this comment outside the kernel doc header, since
> > > this is an implementation detail, not something the caller/user
> > > should be aware of.    
> > 
> > Right.
> >   
> > > 
> > > There's another important aspect to mention here: this function
> > > can only be called from an ->exec_op() implementation if this
> > > implementation is re-entrant.    
> > 
> > I do not agree with this statement: this function can be called
> > from an ->exec_op() implementation even if it is not reentrant as
> > long as it does not send a WAITRDY instruction itself. No?  
> 
> If the ->exec_op() implementation is not re-entrant, no,
> nand_soft_waitrdy() can't be called from ->exec_op(), because then
> you will re-enter ->exec_op() to execute the read_status_op(), and
> BOOM!
> 
> > 
> > Or maybe you wanted to point that the entire ->exec_op()
> > implementation must be reentrant in order to use this function in
> > it?  
> 
> Yes, what did you understand?

Ok, I think I misunderstood the "if this implementation is re-entrant".
The implementation you were referring to was ->exec_op()'s
implementation, not nand_soft_waitrdy()'s.

> 
> >   
> > >     
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Return 0 if the NAND chip is ready, a negative error
> > > > otherwise.
> > > > + */
> > > > +int nand_soft_waitrdy(struct nand_chip *chip, unsigned long
> > > > timeout_ms) +{
> > > > +	u8 status = 0;
> > > > +	int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!chip->exec_op)
> > > > +		return -ENOTSUPP;
> > > > +
> > > > +	ret = nand_status_op(chip, NULL);
> > > > +	if (ret)
> > > > +		return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +	timeout_ms = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_ms);
> > > > +	do {
> > > > +		ret = nand_read_data_op(chip, &status,
> > > > sizeof(status), true);
> > > > +		if (ret)
> > > > +			break;
> > > > +
> > > > +		if (status & NAND_STATUS_READY)
> > > > +			break;
> > > > +
> > > > +		udelay(100);      
> > > 
> > > Sounds a bit high, especially for a read page which takes around
> > > 20us.    
> > 
> > Well, this value is arbitrary but greping for NAND_OP_WAIT_RDY
> > tells us the different timeouts with which this function is usually
> > called, to get an idea of the possible wait periods: tR, tBERS,
> > tFEAT, tPROG, tRST.
> > 
> > While a tR_max is 200us, a tRST_max is 250000us. That is why I
> > choose 100us as period, which I found somehow well tuned for every
> > timeout.  
> 
> A timeout is different from a typical execution time. The timeout is
> here as a boundary to detect when the device/controller is not
> responding, so if you poll the status at the periodicity of the
> timeout, you're likely to wait much more than you should have.
> 
> > But
> > if you think most of the time the delay will be smaller, I will
> > update the value to repeat the operation every 20us.  
> 
> Well, either you do something smart that calculates a polling period
> based on the timeout val (timeout / ratio), or you pick something
> close to the lowest typical value. So, in our case, something like
> 10us, which should not be far from the typical tR value on most NANDs.

For the sake of simplicity, I will then use 10us polling period here.

Thanks,
Miquèl