Subject: [PATCH v3] mtd: nand: sunxi: fix OOB handling in ->write_xxx() functions

From: [email-masked] (Brian Norris)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:46:03 -0700

On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 09:06:48AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> The USER_DATA register cannot be accessed using byte accessors on A13
> SoCs, thus triggering a bug when using memcpy_toio on this register.
> Declare two helper macros to convert an OOB buffer into a suitable
> USER_DATA value and vice-versa.
> 
> This patch also fixes an error in the oob_required logic (some OOB data
> are not written even if the user required it) by removing the
> oob_required condition, which is perfectly valid since the core already
> fill ->oob_poi with FFs when oob_required is false.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]> # 3.19+
> Fixes: 1fef62c1423b ("mtd: nand: add sunxi NAND flash controller support")
> 
> ---
> Changes since v2:
> - add the NFC_USER_DATA_TO_BUF() macro and rename NFC_USER_DATA() into
>   NFC_BUF_TO_USER_DATA()
> - rework the commit message
> 
> Changes since v1:
> - drop the !oob_required conditional path
> - replace endianness conversions by a macro relying on byte shifting
>   operations
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/nand/sunxi_nand.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/sunxi_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/sunxi_nand.c
> index f97a58d..f9b5a4c 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/sunxi_nand.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/sunxi_nand.c
> @@ -147,6 +147,17 @@
>  #define NFC_ECC_MODE		GENMASK(15, 12)
>  #define NFC_RANDOM_SEED		GENMASK(30, 16)
>  
> +/* NFC_USER_DATA helper macros */
> +#define NFC_BUF_TO_USER_DATA(buf)	((buf)[0] | ((buf)[1] << 8) | \
> +					((buf)[2] << 16) | ((buf)[3] << 24))

I thought you were treading on thin ice with bit-shifting a uint8_t, but
it appears that C integer promotion rules are on your side here. (The
result of this operation should be an int.)

> +#define NFC_USER_DATA_TO_BUF(buf, val)	\

BTW, why do you need this macro? It's currently unused. Just as an
example? I can take it as-is if you'd like, but I was curious why you
felt the need for this in v3, especially for -stable.

Brian

> +	{				\
> +		(buf)[0] = val;		\
> +		(buf)[1] = val >> 8;	\
> +		(buf)[2] = val >> 16;	\
> +		(buf)[3] = val >> 24;	\
> +	}
> +
>  #define NFC_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT_MS	1000
>  
>  #define NFC_SRAM_SIZE		1024
> @@ -646,15 +657,9 @@ static int sunxi_nfc_hw_ecc_write_page(struct mtd_info *mtd,
>  		offset = layout->eccpos[i * ecc->bytes] - 4 + mtd->writesize;
>  
>  		/* Fill OOB data in */
> -		if (oob_required) {
> -			tmp = 0xffffffff;
> -			memcpy_toio(nfc->regs + NFC_REG_USER_DATA_BASE, &tmp,
> -				    4);
> -		} else {
> -			memcpy_toio(nfc->regs + NFC_REG_USER_DATA_BASE,
> -				    chip->oob_poi + offset - mtd->writesize,
> -				    4);
> -		}
> +		writel(NFC_BUF_TO_USER_DATA(chip->oob_poi +
> +					    layout->oobfree[i].offset),
> +		       nfc->regs + NFC_REG_USER_DATA_BASE);
>  
>  		chip->cmdfunc(mtd, NAND_CMD_RNDIN, offset, -1);
>  
> @@ -784,14 +789,8 @@ static int sunxi_nfc_hw_syndrome_ecc_write_page(struct mtd_info *mtd,
>  		offset += ecc->size;
>  
>  		/* Fill OOB data in */
> -		if (oob_required) {
> -			tmp = 0xffffffff;
> -			memcpy_toio(nfc->regs + NFC_REG_USER_DATA_BASE, &tmp,
> -				    4);
> -		} else {
> -			memcpy_toio(nfc->regs + NFC_REG_USER_DATA_BASE, oob,
> -				    4);
> -		}
> +		writel(NFC_BUF_TO_USER_DATA(oob),
> +		       nfc->regs + NFC_REG_USER_DATA_BASE);
>  
>  		tmp = NFC_DATA_TRANS | NFC_DATA_SWAP_METHOD | NFC_ACCESS_DIR |
>  		      (1 << 30);
> -- 
> 1.9.1
>