[PATCH v2 01/14] mtd: rawnand: helper function for setting up ECC parameters

[Abhishek Sahu]

On 2018-05-07 09:10, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 2018-05-03 21:20 GMT+09:00 Abhishek Sahu <absahu at codeaurora.org>:
>> commit 2c8f8afa7f92 ("mtd: nand: add generic helpers to check,
>> match, maximize ECC settings") provides generic helpers which
>> drivers can use for setting up ECC parameters.
>> 
>> Since same board can have different ECC strength nand chips so
>> following is the logic for setting up ECC strength and ECC step
>> size, which can be used by most of the drivers.
>> 
>> 1. If both ECC step size and ECC strength are already set
>>    (usually by DT) then just check whether this setting
>>    is supported by NAND controller.
>> 2. If NAND_ECC_MAXIMIZE is set, then select maximum ECC strength
>>    supported by NAND controller.
>> 3. Otherwise, try to match the ECC step size and ECC strength closest
>>    to the chip's requirement. If available OOB size can't fit the chip
>>    requirement then select maximum ECC strength which can be fit with
>>    available OOB size with warning.
>> 
>> This patch introduces nand_ecc_param_setup function which calls the
>> required helper functions for the above logic. The drivers can use
>> this single function instead of calling the 3 helper functions
>> individually.
>> 
>> CC: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sahu <absahu at codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>> * Changes from v1:
>> 
>>   NEW PATCH
>> 
>>  drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 42 
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h      |  3 +++
>>  2 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c 
>> b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
>> index 72f3a89..dd7a984 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
>> @@ -6249,6 +6249,48 @@ int nand_maximize_ecc(struct nand_chip *chip,
>>  }
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nand_maximize_ecc);
>> 
>> +/**
>> + * nand_ecc_param_setup - Set the ECC strength and ECC step size
>> + * @chip: nand chip info structure
>> + * @caps: ECC engine caps info structure
>> + * @oobavail: OOB size that the ECC engine can use
>> + *
>> + * Choose the ECC strength according to following logic
>> + *
>> + * 1. If both ECC step size and ECC strength are already set (usually 
>> by DT)
>> + *    then check if it is supported by this controller.
>> + * 2. If NAND_ECC_MAXIMIZE is set, then select maximum ECC strength.
>> + * 3. Otherwise, try to match the ECC step size and ECC strength 
>> closest
>> + *    to the chip's requirement. If available OOB size can't fit the 
>> chip
>> + *    requirement then fallback to the maximum ECC step size and ECC 
>> strength
>> + *    and print the warning.
>> + *
>> + * On success, the chosen ECC settings are set.
>> + */
>> +int nand_ecc_param_setup(struct nand_chip *chip,
>> +                        const struct nand_ecc_caps *caps, int 
>> oobavail)
>> +{
>> +       int ret;
>> +
>> +       if (chip->ecc.size && chip->ecc.strength)
>> +               return nand_check_ecc_caps(chip, caps, oobavail);
>> +
>> +       if (chip->ecc.options & NAND_ECC_MAXIMIZE)
>> +               return nand_maximize_ecc(chip, caps, oobavail);
>> +
>> +       if (!nand_match_ecc_req(chip, caps, oobavail))
>> +               return 0;
>> +
>> +       ret = nand_maximize_ecc(chip, caps, oobavail);
> 
> 
> Why two calls for nand_maximize_ecc()?
> 
> My code is simpler, and does not display
> false-positive warning.
> 

  Thanks Masahiro.

  Since, Now this is in moved to generic layer that's why I put
  this warning that this function is falling back to some
  other ECC settings which is not recommend by chip.

  If this warning seems unnecessary then I can remove this
  and then directly your code changes can be put here
  instead of calling nand_maximize_ecc 2 times.

> 
>> +       if (!ret)
>> +               pr_warn("ECC (step, strength) = (%d, %d) not supported 
>> on this controller. Fallback to (%d, %d)\n",
>> +                       chip->ecc_step_ds, chip->ecc_strength_ds,
>> +                       chip->ecc.size, chip->ecc.strength);
> 
> 
> This is annoying.
> 
> {ecc_step_ds, ecc_strength_ds} are not provided by Non-ONFi devices.
> 
> So,
>   ECC (step, strength) = (0, 0) not supported on this controller.
> 
> will be always displayed.
> 
> 
> The strength will be checked by nand_ecc_strength_good() anyway.
> 

  But for most of the non ONFI devices also, this is being calculated
  by ID.

  You can get some background for this in
  http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2018-April/080193.html

  Regards,
  Abhishek