[PATCH 04/20] mtd: nand: ecc-bch: Stop exporting the private structure

[Adam Ford]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal at bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> > > ---8<---
> > >
> > > Author: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal at bootlin.com>
> > > Date:   Tue Jan 19 12:27:07 2021 +0100
> > >
> > >     wip: fix omap
> > >
> > >     Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal at bootlin.com>
> > >
> > Thanks for fixing this.
> >
> > I tested your patch, and I no longer get a Panic and the MTD device
> > appears to appear correctly:
> >
> > mtdoops: mtd device (mtddev=name/number) must be supplied
> > omap2-nand 30000000.nand: GPIO lookup for consumer rb
> > omap2-nand 30000000.nand: using device tree for GPIO lookup
> > of_get_named_gpiod_flags: parsed 'rb-gpios' property of node
> > '/ocp at 68000000/gpmc at 6e000000/nand at 0,0[0]' - status (0)
> > gpio gpiochip6: Persistence not supported for GPIO 0
> > nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0x2c, Chip ID: 0xbc
> > nand: Micron MT29F4G16ABBDA3W
> > nand: 512 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 64
> > nand: using OMAP_ECC_BCH8_CODE_HW_DETECTION_SW
> > 6 cmdlinepart partitions found on MTD device omap2-nand.0
> > Creating 6 MTD partitions on "omap2-nand.0":
> > ...
>
> Good to know. Can you just tell me if the values of
> - chip->ecc.bytes vs. engine_conf->code_size
> - chip->ecc.steps vs. engine_conf->nsteps
> are the same in both cases (your patch and mine)? Otherwise your data
> might appear corrupted somehow.

I didn't fully vet my hack, beyond eliminating the Kernel panic, so I
felt more comfortable comparing the values to a stable release.
I compared the values in 5.10 to 5.11-rc4 + your patch, and the number
of steps and oobregion->length are identical between them.

5.10.5:
  chip->ecc.steps = 4
  oobregion->length = d

5.11-rc4 + patch:
  engine_conf->nsteps = 4
  oobregion->length = d

adam
>
> >
> > When you submit a formal patch, CC me on the patch, and I'll respond
> > with a 'tested-by'
>
> Of course, I'll also add a Reported-by.
>
> Thanks,
> Miquèl