From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753138AbaDAL3f (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2014 07:29:35 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:59352 "EHLO mail-wg0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751328AbaDAL3c (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2014 07:29:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:29:26 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Brian Norris Cc: Ezequiel Garcia , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, angus.clark@st.com, kernel@stlinux.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, pekon@ti.com, dwmw2@infradead.org Subject: Re: [RFC 00/47] mtd: nand: Add new driver supporting ST's BCH h/w Message-ID: <20140401112926.GB24013@lee--X1> References: <1395735604-26706-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20140325125050.GB665@arch.cereza> <20140325131139.GB24823@lee--X1> <20140325220045.GA12185@arch.cereza> <20140326072805.GB31517@norris-Latitude-E6410> <20140327102835.GA17779@lee--X1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20140327102835.GA17779@lee--X1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > The call to nand_scan_tail() would remove the need to export those NAND > > > core functions, and remove the need to scan and print the bad blocks. > > > I don't know if you have a real reason for not doing it this way, or > > > maybe it's the way this driver was originally written. > > > > > > Care to review this and re-spin the driver? You'll have a more nicer > > > driver, and more framework-compliant. > > > > A hearty +1 to this. You are avoiding much of the core of the NAND > > framework by avoiding the nand_chip callbacks and nand_scan_tail(), and > > by reimplementing the BBT. I will have to NAK to some of the patches > > that EXPORT the nand_base private core (e.g., nand_get_device()), and I > > will most likely NAK the custom BBT implementation (please improve > > nand_bbt.c as needed). > > This is a good catch. I will attempt to reimplement the driver's > initialisation steps to utilise more of the core infrastructure in an > attempt to mitigate the requirement for exportation of private > routines. > > The BBT requirements are somewhere more complex. To provide you with > the complete picture, a little knowledge of driver history is > required. When it was initially created the MTD core only supported > OOB BBTs, but the ST BCH Controller doesn't support OOB access, so > Angus wrote his on In-Band (IB) implementation. Unfortunately the IB > support which _is_ now present in the kernel doesn't match the > internal implementation. Normally this wouldn't be an issue in itself, > but ST's boot-stack and tooling (Primary Bootloader, U-Boot, various > Programmers, etc) are aware of the internal IB BTT and utilise it > in varying ways. Shifting over to the Mainline version in > one-foul-swoop _will_ cause lots of pain and will probably result in > the disownership of driver we're trying to Mainline today. Naturally > I'm keen to avoid this. Just looking into this now. Can I add support for a vendor specific signature extension? ST's flashers, bootloaders and tooling currently use the format: /* Extend IBBT header with some stm-nand-bch niceties */ struct nand_ibbt_bch_header { uint8_t signature[4]; /* "Bbt0" or "1tbB" signature */ uint8_t version; /* BBT version ("age") */ uint8_t reserved[3]; /* padding */ uint8_t baseschema[4]; /* "base" schema (x4) */ uint8_t privschema[4]; /* "private" schema (x4) */ uint8_t ecc_size[4]; /* ECC bytes (0, 32, 54) (x4) */ char author[64]; /* Arbitrary string for S/W to use */ }; __attribute__((__packed__)) It would be great if we can support this with a descriptor option or suchlike, as it would a) save me a lot of aggravation and b) continue to support ST with their current use-case. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WUwtC-0005Xo-SA for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 11:30:00 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id z2so3176884wiv.0 for ; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 04:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:29:26 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Brian Norris Subject: Re: [RFC 00/47] mtd: nand: Add new driver supporting ST's BCH h/w Message-ID: <20140401112926.GB24013@lee--X1> References: <1395735604-26706-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20140325125050.GB665@arch.cereza> <20140325131139.GB24823@lee--X1> <20140325220045.GA12185@arch.cereza> <20140326072805.GB31517@norris-Latitude-E6410> <20140327102835.GA17779@lee--X1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20140327102835.GA17779@lee--X1> Cc: angus.clark@st.com, kernel@stlinux.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, pekon@ti.com, Ezequiel Garcia , dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > > The call to nand_scan_tail() would remove the need to export those NAND > > > core functions, and remove the need to scan and print the bad blocks. > > > I don't know if you have a real reason for not doing it this way, or > > > maybe it's the way this driver was originally written. > > > > > > Care to review this and re-spin the driver? You'll have a more nicer > > > driver, and more framework-compliant. > > > > A hearty +1 to this. You are avoiding much of the core of the NAND > > framework by avoiding the nand_chip callbacks and nand_scan_tail(), and > > by reimplementing the BBT. I will have to NAK to some of the patches > > that EXPORT the nand_base private core (e.g., nand_get_device()), and I > > will most likely NAK the custom BBT implementation (please improve > > nand_bbt.c as needed). > > This is a good catch. I will attempt to reimplement the driver's > initialisation steps to utilise more of the core infrastructure in an > attempt to mitigate the requirement for exportation of private > routines. > > The BBT requirements are somewhere more complex. To provide you with > the complete picture, a little knowledge of driver history is > required. When it was initially created the MTD core only supported > OOB BBTs, but the ST BCH Controller doesn't support OOB access, so > Angus wrote his on In-Band (IB) implementation. Unfortunately the IB > support which _is_ now present in the kernel doesn't match the > internal implementation. Normally this wouldn't be an issue in itself, > but ST's boot-stack and tooling (Primary Bootloader, U-Boot, various > Programmers, etc) are aware of the internal IB BTT and utilise it > in varying ways. Shifting over to the Mainline version in > one-foul-swoop _will_ cause lots of pain and will probably result in > the disownership of driver we're trying to Mainline today. Naturally > I'm keen to avoid this. Just looking into this now. Can I add support for a vendor specific signature extension? ST's flashers, bootloaders and tooling currently use the format: /* Extend IBBT header with some stm-nand-bch niceties */ struct nand_ibbt_bch_header { uint8_t signature[4]; /* "Bbt0" or "1tbB" signature */ uint8_t version; /* BBT version ("age") */ uint8_t reserved[3]; /* padding */ uint8_t baseschema[4]; /* "base" schema (x4) */ uint8_t privschema[4]; /* "private" schema (x4) */ uint8_t ecc_size[4]; /* ECC bytes (0, 32, 54) (x4) */ char author[64]; /* Arbitrary string for S/W to use */ }; __attribute__((__packed__)) It would be great if we can support this with a descriptor option or suchlike, as it would a) save me a lot of aggravation and b) continue to support ST with their current use-case. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:29:26 +0100 Subject: [RFC 00/47] mtd: nand: Add new driver supporting ST's BCH h/w In-Reply-To: <20140327102835.GA17779@lee--X1> References: <1395735604-26706-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20140325125050.GB665@arch.cereza> <20140325131139.GB24823@lee--X1> <20140325220045.GA12185@arch.cereza> <20140326072805.GB31517@norris-Latitude-E6410> <20140327102835.GA17779@lee--X1> Message-ID: <20140401112926.GB24013@lee--X1> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > > > The call to nand_scan_tail() would remove the need to export those NAND > > > core functions, and remove the need to scan and print the bad blocks. > > > I don't know if you have a real reason for not doing it this way, or > > > maybe it's the way this driver was originally written. > > > > > > Care to review this and re-spin the driver? You'll have a more nicer > > > driver, and more framework-compliant. > > > > A hearty +1 to this. You are avoiding much of the core of the NAND > > framework by avoiding the nand_chip callbacks and nand_scan_tail(), and > > by reimplementing the BBT. I will have to NAK to some of the patches > > that EXPORT the nand_base private core (e.g., nand_get_device()), and I > > will most likely NAK the custom BBT implementation (please improve > > nand_bbt.c as needed). > > This is a good catch. I will attempt to reimplement the driver's > initialisation steps to utilise more of the core infrastructure in an > attempt to mitigate the requirement for exportation of private > routines. > > The BBT requirements are somewhere more complex. To provide you with > the complete picture, a little knowledge of driver history is > required. When it was initially created the MTD core only supported > OOB BBTs, but the ST BCH Controller doesn't support OOB access, so > Angus wrote his on In-Band (IB) implementation. Unfortunately the IB > support which _is_ now present in the kernel doesn't match the > internal implementation. Normally this wouldn't be an issue in itself, > but ST's boot-stack and tooling (Primary Bootloader, U-Boot, various > Programmers, etc) are aware of the internal IB BTT and utilise it > in varying ways. Shifting over to the Mainline version in > one-foul-swoop _will_ cause lots of pain and will probably result in > the disownership of driver we're trying to Mainline today. Naturally > I'm keen to avoid this. Just looking into this now. Can I add support for a vendor specific signature extension? ST's flashers, bootloaders and tooling currently use the format: /* Extend IBBT header with some stm-nand-bch niceties */ struct nand_ibbt_bch_header { uint8_t signature[4]; /* "Bbt0" or "1tbB" signature */ uint8_t version; /* BBT version ("age") */ uint8_t reserved[3]; /* padding */ uint8_t baseschema[4]; /* "base" schema (x4) */ uint8_t privschema[4]; /* "private" schema (x4) */ uint8_t ecc_size[4]; /* ECC bytes (0, 32, 54) (x4) */ char author[64]; /* Arbitrary string for S/W to use */ }; __attribute__((__packed__)) It would be great if we can support this with a descriptor option or suchlike, as it would a) save me a lot of aggravation and b) continue to support ST with their current use-case. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog