Subject: [PATCH v3 22/28] mtd: nand: pxa3xx: Introduce multiple page I/O support

From: [email-masked] (Ezequiel Garcia)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 22:13:52 -0300

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:04:32AM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:55:29AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/pxa3xx_nand.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/pxa3xx_nand.c
> > @@ -826,7 +887,8 @@ static void pxa3xx_nand_cmdfunc(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned command,
> >  	prepare_start_command(info, command);
> >  
> >  	info->state = STATE_PREPARED;
> > -	exec_cmd = prepare_set_command(info, command, column, page_addr);
> > +	exec_cmd = prepare_set_command(info, command, -1, column, page_addr);
> 
> Is it safe to use -1 for the third parameter (ext_cmd_type)? AFAICT,
> this doesn't make for correct input to the NDCB0_EXT_CMD_TYPE() macro.
> 

Right. Probably '0' is a saner value.

> > +
> >  	if (exec_cmd) {
> >  		init_completion(&info->cmd_complete);
> >  		init_completion(&info->dev_ready);
> > @@ -844,6 +906,91 @@ static void pxa3xx_nand_cmdfunc(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned command,
> >  	info->state = STATE_IDLE;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void armada370_nand_cmdfunc(struct mtd_info *mtd,
> > +				   const unsigned command,
> > +				   int column, int page_addr)
> > +{
> > +	struct pxa3xx_nand_host *host = mtd->priv;
> > +	struct pxa3xx_nand_info *info = host->info_data;
> > +	int ret, exec_cmd, ext_cmd_type;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * if this is a x16 device ,then convert the input
> 
> Misplaced comma/whitespace.
> 

Ack.

> > +	 * "byte" address into a "word" address appropriate
> > +	 * for indexing a word-oriented device
> > +	 */
> > +	if (info->reg_ndcr & NDCR_DWIDTH_M)
> > +		column /= 2;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * There may be different NAND chip hooked to
> > +	 * different chip select, so check whether
> > +	 * chip select has been changed, if yes, reset the timing
> > +	 */
> > +	if (info->cs != host->cs) {
> > +		info->cs = host->cs;
> > +		nand_writel(info, NDTR0CS0, info->ndtr0cs0);
> > +		nand_writel(info, NDTR1CS0, info->ndtr1cs0);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* Select the extended command for the first command */
> > +	switch (command) {
> > +	case NAND_CMD_READ0:
> > +	case NAND_CMD_READOOB:
> > +		ext_cmd_type = EXT_CMD_TYPE_MONO;
> > +		break;
> > +	}
> 
> You have no default case for this switch statement, leaving ext_cmd_type
> uninitialized in some cases. You add the other cases in a later patch,
> but this patch is temporarily broken.
> 

Right, I'll add a zero-valued default.

> > +
> > +	prepare_start_command(info, command);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Prepare the "is ready" completion before starting a command
> > +	 * transaction sequence. If the command is not executed the
> > +	 * completion will be completed, see below.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * We can do that inside the loop because the command variable
> > +	 * is invariant and thus so is the exec_cmd.
> > +	 */
> > +	atomic_set(&info->is_ready, 0);
> > +	init_completion(&info->dev_ready);
> > +	do {
> > +		info->state = STATE_PREPARED;
> > +		exec_cmd = prepare_set_command(info, command, ext_cmd_type,
> > +					       column, page_addr);
> 
> [...]
> 
> > @@ -1155,7 +1306,30 @@ static int armada370_ecc_init(struct pxa3xx_nand_info *info,
> >  			      struct nand_ecc_ctrl *ecc,
> >  			      int strength, int page_size)
> >  {
> > -	/* Unimplemented yet */
> > +	if (strength == 4 && page_size == 4096) {
> 
> You compare only to ecc_strength_ds, and not ecc_step_ds. While it is
> likely that a 4-bit ECC NAND will have a 512-byte ECC step size, you
> should probably check this.
> 

OK.

> What about strength < 4? Shouldn't you be able to support a 1-bit ECC
> NAND with your 4-bit ECC?
> 

Yes, probably. The rationale behind these xxx_ecc_init() functions is
to only validate the devices I've tested or that are known to work.

That said, maybe I'm being too paranoid.

> Also, do you plan to support non-ONFI NAND?

Not for the time being. (Are there any new non-ONFI NAND devices?)

> Remember that nand_base
> doesn't guarantee giving you a non-zero ECC strength. You might need a
> DT binding to specify this, if it's not automatically detectable.
> 

Given this series is already long and complex, I'd like to push as much
features as possible to follow-up patches. That way we can support the
current boards out there now (Mirabox's a relevant example) and add support
for more later, gradually.

> > +		ecc->mode = NAND_ECC_HW;
> > +		ecc->size = 512;
> > +		ecc->layout = &ecc_layout_4KB_bch4bit;
> > +		ecc->strength = 4;
> > +
> > +		info->ecc_bch = 1;
> > +		info->chunk_size = 2048;
> > +		info->spare_size = 32;
> > +		info->ecc_size = 32;
> > +		return 1;
> > +
> > +	} else if (strength == 8 && page_size == 4096) {
> > +		ecc->mode = NAND_ECC_HW;
> > +		ecc->size = 512;
> > +		ecc->layout = &ecc_layout_4KB_bch8bit;
> > +		ecc->strength = 8;
> 
> These ECC parameters (8-bit per 512 and 4-bit per 512) sound reasonable
> and consistent with other ECC schemes I've seen. But I'm still not clear
> if we are 100% certain that matches the actual hardware implementation.
> Did you do any further research since the last time we talked about
> this?
> 

Yes, and I tried to answer your questions in detail in the cover letters
(which now is in a patch for Documentation/mtd/nand/...) and in past
discussion.

See for instance: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.mtd/48895.

Feel free to ask any further clarification about how the ECC engine
works. If you think it'll help, I can write a separate mail describing
it (to the best of my knowledge) and we can discuss there.

In particular, the above link contains a question that is still
unanswered and that would help me understand this better.
I'll copy-paste it here:

"""
Regarding this: I'd really like to understand better this 'step' concept
and it applicability on this controller. So any clarification is welcome
:)

As far as I can see: currently the hardware does ECC corrections in a
completely transparent fashion and merely 'reports' the no. of corrected
bits through some IRQ plus some registers.
Therefore, it implements the ecc.{read,write}_page() functions.

So, why should I tell the NAND core any of the ECC details?

I see other drivers need to implement some of the functions in the
nand_ecc_ctrl struct, such as: hwctl(), calculate() or correct().
However, I can't see how any of that applies on this controller.
"""

Thanks a lot for reviewing all of this!
-- 
Ezequiel Garc?a, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com