[PATCH v4 1/5] mtd: rawnand: qcom: Implement exec_op()
Md Sadre Alam
quic_mdalam at quicinc.com
Thu Jul 6 05:13:54 PDT 2023
On 7/4/2023 8:20 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> quic_mdalam at quicinc.com wrote on Thu, 15 Jun 2023 13:01:39 +0530:
>
>> Implement exec_op() so we can later get rid of the legacy interface
>> implementation.
>>
>> Co-developed-by: Sricharan Ramabadhran <quic_srichara at quicinc.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan Ramabadhran <quic_srichara at quicinc.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Md Sadre Alam <quic_mdalam at quicinc.com>
>> ---
>> Change in [v4]
>>
>> * No change for this patch, since this is part of exec_op
>> series posting new patch.
>>
>> Change in [v3]
>>
>> * Removed NAND_CMD_STATUS check in pre_command and move
>> it to status exec_op.
>>
>> * Removed min() , since this check not needed
>>
>> * Removed all the dummy APIs of exec_ops, and added it
>> into same patch where its getting added.
>>
>> * Added qcom_check_op() API to check for unsupported feature
>> by controller in check_only path.
>>
>> Change in [v2]
>>
>> * Missed to post Cover-letter, so posting v2 patch with cover-letter
>>
>> Change in [v1]
>>
>> * Added initial support for exec_ops.
>>
>> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/qcom_nandc.c | 159 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 159 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/qcom_nandc.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/qcom_nandc.c
>> index 72d6168d8a1b..d9c4c9fe2fe8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/qcom_nandc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/qcom_nandc.c
>> @@ -157,6 +157,7 @@
>> #define OP_PAGE_PROGRAM_WITH_ECC 0x7
>> #define OP_PROGRAM_PAGE_SPARE 0x9
>> #define OP_BLOCK_ERASE 0xa
>> +#define OP_CHECK_STATUS 0xc
>> #define OP_FETCH_ID 0xb
>> #define OP_RESET_DEVICE 0xd
>>
>> @@ -235,6 +236,8 @@ nandc_set_reg(chip, reg, \
>> */
>> #define NAND_ERASED_CW_SET BIT(4)
>>
>> +#define MAX_ADDRESS_CYCLE 5
>> +#define MAX_CHUNK_SIZE SZ_8K
>
> New line.
Will fix in next patch v5.
>
>> /*
>> * This data type corresponds to the BAM transaction which will be used for all
>> * NAND transfers.
>> @@ -447,6 +450,29 @@ struct qcom_nand_boot_partition {
>> u32 page_size;
>> };
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Qcom op for each exec_op transfer
>> + *
>> + * @data_instr: data instruction pointer
>> + * @data_instr_idx: data instruction index
>> + * @rdy_timeout_ms: wait ready timeout in ms
>> + * @rdy_delay_ns: Additional delay in ns
>> + * @addr1_reg: Address1 register value
>> + * @addr2_reg: Address2 register value
>> + * @cmd_reg: CMD register value
>> + * @flag: flag for misc instruction
>> + */
>> +struct qcom_op {
>> + const struct nand_op_instr *data_instr;
>> + unsigned int data_instr_idx;
>> + unsigned int rdy_timeout_ms;
>> + unsigned int rdy_delay_ns;
>> + u32 addr1_reg;
>> + u32 addr2_reg;
>> + u32 cmd_reg;
>> + u8 flag;
>> +};
>> +
>> /*
>> * NAND chip structure
>> *
>> @@ -2867,8 +2893,141 @@ static int qcom_nand_attach_chip(struct nand_chip *chip)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int qcom_op_cmd_mapping(struct qcom_nand_controller *nandc, u8 cmd,
>> + struct qcom_op *q_op)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + switch (cmd) {
>> + case NAND_CMD_RESET:
>> + ret = OP_RESET_DEVICE;
>> + break;
>> + case NAND_CMD_READID:
>> + ret = OP_FETCH_ID;
>> + break;
>> + case NAND_CMD_PARAM:
>> + if (nandc->props->qpic_v2)
>> + ret = OP_PAGE_READ_ONFI_READ;
>> + else
>> + ret = OP_PAGE_READ;
>> + break;
>> + case NAND_CMD_ERASE1:
>> + case NAND_CMD_ERASE2:
>> + ret = OP_BLOCK_ERASE;
>> + break;
>> + case NAND_CMD_STATUS:
>> + ret = OP_CHECK_STATUS;
>> + break;
>> + case NAND_CMD_PAGEPROG:
>> + ret = OP_PROGRAM_PAGE;
>> + break;
>> + default:
>
> Again, this is not a supported case, you should handle it. And this
> must be checked upon check_only conditions as well.
>
Yes understand , Will handle this case in next patch v5.
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* NAND framework ->exec_op() hooks and related helpers */
>> +static void qcom_parse_instructions(struct nand_chip *chip,
>> + const struct nand_subop *subop,
>> + struct qcom_op *q_op)
>> +{
>> + struct qcom_nand_controller *nandc = get_qcom_nand_controller(chip);
>> + const struct nand_op_instr *instr = NULL;
>> + unsigned int op_id;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + memset(q_op, 0, sizeof(*q_op));
>> +
>> + for (op_id = 0; op_id < subop->ninstrs; op_id++) {
>> + unsigned int offset, naddrs;
>> + const u8 *addrs;
>> +
>> + instr = &subop->instrs[op_id];
>> +
>> + switch (instr->type) {
>> + case NAND_OP_CMD_INSTR:
>> + q_op->cmd_reg = qcom_op_cmd_mapping(nandc, instr->ctx.cmd.opcode, q_op);
>> + q_op->rdy_delay_ns = instr->delay_ns;
>> + break;
>> +
>> + case NAND_OP_ADDR_INSTR:
>> + offset = nand_subop_get_addr_start_off(subop, op_id);
>> + naddrs = nand_subop_get_num_addr_cyc(subop, op_id);
>> + addrs = &instr->ctx.addr.addrs[offset];
>> + for (i = 0; i < MAX_ADDRESS_CYCLE; i++) {
>> + if (i < 4)
>> + q_op->addr1_reg |= (u32)addrs[i] << i * 8;
>> + else
>> + q_op->addr2_reg |= addrs[i];
>> + }
>> + q_op->rdy_delay_ns = instr->delay_ns;
>> + break;
>> +
>> + case NAND_OP_DATA_IN_INSTR:
>> + q_op->data_instr = instr;
>> + q_op->data_instr_idx = op_id;
>> + q_op->rdy_delay_ns = instr->delay_ns;
>> + fallthrough;
>> + case NAND_OP_DATA_OUT_INSTR:
>> + q_op->rdy_delay_ns = instr->delay_ns;
>> + break;
>> +
>> + case NAND_OP_WAITRDY_INSTR:
>> + q_op->rdy_timeout_ms = instr->ctx.waitrdy.timeout_ms;
>> + q_op->rdy_delay_ns = instr->delay_ns;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int qcom_check_op(struct nand_chip *chip,
>> + const struct nand_operation *op)
>> +{
>> + const struct nand_op_instr *instr;
>> + int op_id;
>> +
>> + for (op_id = 0; op_id < op->ninstrs; op_id++) {
>> + instr = &op->instrs[op_id];
>> +
>> + switch (instr->type) {
>> + case NAND_OP_CMD_INSTR:
>> + if (instr->ctx.cmd.opcode == NAND_CMD_READCACHESEQ ||
>> + instr->ctx.cmd.opcode == NAND_CMD_READCACHEEND)
>> + return -ENOTSUPP;
>
> Do you really need this check? These operations have specific pattern,
> no? I believe you should not need this check.
Yes you are correct, these command are having specific pattern.
Its not needed here , will remove in next patch v5.
>> + break;
>> + case NAND_OP_ADDR_INSTR:
>> + if (instr->ctx.addr.naddrs > MAX_ADDRESS_CYCLE)
>> + return -ENOTSUPP;
>
> This one is not needed either, as long as you properly define the
> patterns.
Yes this one as well not needed. Will remove in next patch v5.
>
>> +
>> + break;
>> + case NAND_OP_DATA_IN_INSTR:
>> + case NAND_OP_DATA_OUT_INSTR:
>> + if (instr->ctx.data.len > MAX_CHUNK_SIZE)
>
> Same.
Will remove in next patch v5.
>> + return -ENOTSUPP;
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int qcom_nand_exec_op(struct nand_chip *chip,
>> + const struct nand_operation *op,
>> + bool check_only)
>> +{
>> + if (check_only)
>> + return qcom_check_op(chip, op);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> static const struct nand_controller_ops qcom_nandc_ops = {
>> .attach_chip = qcom_nand_attach_chip,
>> + .exec_op = qcom_nand_exec_op,
>
> I understand the idea of making the series easier to review, and I
> thank you for that, but in practice the series is not bisectable. I
> doubt the driver works right after patch 1.
Yes you are right. This series patches are not bisectable, but got
compiled individually. But boot up will not work after patch 1.
>
> You will likely need two patches, one to add exec_op, one to remove the
> legacy implementation.
Will combine all the patches in two patches. One for exec_op() implementation.
another one is Remove legacy implementation. Will do this in next patch v5.
>
>> };
>>
>> static void qcom_nandc_unalloc(struct qcom_nand_controller *nandc)
>
>
> Thanks,
> Miquèl
More information about the linux-mtd
mailing list