[PATCH v2 3/4] mtd: nand: pxa3xx: Use ECC strength and step size devicetree binding

Brian Norris computersforpeace at gmail.com
Tue May 13 16:37:52 PDT 2014

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:18:41PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On 12 May 11:01 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 08:34:49AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > > Also, if there is an ONFI-specified minimum ECC strength requirement,
> > > and the DT-specified ECC strength is weaker, print a warning and try to
> > > select a strength compatible with the ONFI requirement.
> > 
> > Are you sure you want to override? That seems contrary to the idea of a
> > DT property for specifying ECC. But maybe you have a good reason?
> > 
> Actually, on IRC discussions you enforced the idea that the kernel shouldn't
> allow a weaker ECC strength than the datasheet (ONFI or ID table) specified.
> Hence, following your request, the implementation considers such devicetree
> setting as illegal and tries to find another one.

Hmm, I don't recall saying that exactly, although I might have said
something similar that could have been misconstrued as such.

I mostly recall discussing setting the ECC strength *without* device
tree (as pxa3xx_nand currently does), which is a different case, since
we don't have any outside input.

But anyway...

> > If you'd rather just warn the user, it's possible we could move that to
> > common code in nand_base.c.
> > 
> Now that you mention this, I think you're right: it's very stupid to try to
> match an ECC scheme, different from the requested.
> So, we either just warn the user (nosily) or we fail to probe the driver.
> If you ask me, I'd say let's just WARN() and let the user take the blame.

...yes, I (regardless of what "IRC Brian" said!) think that is the
correct approach when given an ECC scheme via device-tree. We should
honor it, and blame the user loudly.


More information about the linux-mtd mailing list