Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mtd/nand : workaround for Freescale FCM to support large-page Nand chip

From: Scott Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:46:24 -0600

On 12/05/2011 12:47 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 12:31 +0800, [email-masked] wrote:
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Freescale FCM controller has a 2K size limitation of buffer
>> +		 * RAM, so elbc_fcm_ctrl->buffer have to be used if writesize
>> +		 * of chip is greater than 2048.
>> +		 * We malloc a large enough buffer (maximum page size is 16K).
>> +		 */
>> +		elbc_fcm_ctrl->buffer = kmalloc(1024 * 16 + 1024, GFP_KERNEL);
>> +		if (!elbc_fcm_ctrl->buffer) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "failed to allocate memory\n");
>> +			mutex_unlock(&fsl_elbc_nand_mutex);
>> +			ret = -ENOMEM;
>> +			goto err;
>> +		}
> 
> Sorry for returning to this again and agian - I do not have time to dig
> suggest you the right solutions on the one hand, you do not provide me a
> good answer on the other hand (or I forgot?).
> 
> 16KiB pages do not even exist I believe.

Googling turns up some hints of it, but nothing concrete such as a
datasheet.  We can assume 8K max for now and adjust it later, as the
need becomes clear.

> And you kmalloc 33KiB or RAM

17KiB, or 9KiB if we forget about 16K-page NAND.

> although in most cases you need only 5KiB. I think this is wrong -
> what is the very strong reason of wasting RAM you have?
> 
> Why you cannot allocate exactly the required amount of RAM after
> 'nand_scan_ident()' finishes and you know the page size?

Because this is a controller resource, shared by multiple NAND chips
that may be different page sizes (even if not, it's adding another point
of synchronization required between initialization of different chips).
 I don't think it's worth the gymnastics to save a few KiB.

-Scott