All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Cc: Chris Moore <moore@free.fr>,
	"Wan, Jane (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale)" <jane.wan@nokia.com>,
	"dwmw2@infradead.org" <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	"computersforpeace@gmail.com" <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
	"richard@nod.at" <richard@nod.at>,
	"marek.vasut@gmail.com" <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
	"yamada.masahiro@socionext.com" <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
	"prabhakar.kushwaha@nxp.com" <prabhakar.kushwaha@nxp.com>,
	"shawnguo@kernel.org" <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	"jagdish.gediya@nxp.com" <jagdish.gediya@nxp.com>,
	"shreeya.patel23498@gmail.com" <shreeya.patel23498@gmail.com>,
	"Bos, Ties (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale)" <ties.bos@nokia.com>,
	"linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] mtd: rawnand: use bit-wise majority to recover the contents of ONFI parameter
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 11:08:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180516110839.46e881c6@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180516094227.14132e74@xps13>

On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:42:27 +0200
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:

> Hi Chris,
> 
> > >>> +static void nand_bit_wise_majority(const void **srcbufs,
> > >>> +				   unsigned int nsrcbufs,
> > >>> +				   void *dstbuf,
> > >>> +				   unsigned int bufsize)
> > >>> +{
> > >>> +	int i, j, k;
> > >>> +
> > >>> +	for (i = 0; i < bufsize; i++) {
> > >>> +		u8 cnt, val;
> > >>> +
> > >>> +		val = 0;
> > >>> +		for (j = 0; j < 8; j++) {
> > >>> +			cnt = 0;
> > >>> +			for (k = 0; k < nsrcbufs; k++) {
> > >>> +				const u8 *srcbuf = srcbufs[k];
> > >>> +
> > >>> +				if (srcbuf[i] & BIT(j))
> > >>> +					cnt++;
> > >>> +			}
> > >>> +			if (cnt > nsrcbufs / 2)
> > >>> +				val |= BIT(j);
> > >>> +		}
> > >>> +		((u8 *)dstbuf)[i] = val;
> > >>> +	}
> > >>> +}
> > >>> +
> > >>> +/*
> > >>>     * Check if the NAND chip is ONFI compliant, returns 1 if it is, 0 otherwise.
> > >>>     */
> > >>>    static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct nand_chip *chip)
> > >>> @@ -5102,7 +5131,7 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct nand_chip *chip)
> > >>>    		return 0;    
> > >>>    >>>    	/* ONFI chip: allocate a buffer to hold its parameter page */    
> > >>> -	p = kzalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >>> +	p = kzalloc((sizeof(*p) * 3), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >>>    	if (!p)
> > >>>    		return -ENOMEM;    
> > >>>    >>> @@ -5113,21 +5142,32 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct nand_chip *chip)    
> > >>>    	}    
> > >>>    >>>    	for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {    
> > >>> -		ret = nand_read_data_op(chip, p, sizeof(*p), true);
> > >>> +		ret = nand_read_data_op(chip, &p[i], sizeof(*p), true);
> > >>>    		if (ret) {
> > >>>    			ret = 0;
> > >>>    			goto free_onfi_param_page;
> > >>>    		}    
> > >>>    >>> -		if (onfi_crc16(ONFI_CRC_BASE, (uint8_t *)p, 254) ==    
> > >>> +		if (onfi_crc16(ONFI_CRC_BASE, (u8 *)&p[i], 254) ==
> > >>>    				le16_to_cpu(p->crc)) {
> > >>> +			if (i)
> > >>> +				memcpy(p, &p[i], sizeof(*p));
> > >>>    			break;
> > >>>    		}
> > >>>    	}    
> > >>>    >>>    	if (i == 3) {    
> > >>> -		pr_err("Could not find valid ONFI parameter page; aborting\n");
> > >>> -		goto free_onfi_param_page;
> > >>> +		const void *srcbufs[3] = {p, p + 1, p + 2};
> > >>> +
> > >>> +		pr_warn("Could not find a valid ONFI parameter page, trying bit-wise majority to recover it\n");
> > >>> +		nand_bit_wise_majority(srcbufs, ARRAY_SIZE(srcbufs), p,
> > >>> +				       sizeof(*p));
> > >>> +
> > >>> +		if (onfi_crc16(ONFI_CRC_BASE, (u8 *)p, 254) !=
> > >>> +				le16_to_cpu(p->crc)) {
> > >>> +			pr_err("ONFI parameter recovery failed, aborting\n");
> > >>> +			goto free_onfi_param_page;
> > >>> +		}
> > >>>    	}    
> > >>>    >>>    	/* Check version */    
> > >> This version is still hard coded for a three sample bitwise majority vote.
> > >> So why not use the method which I suggested previously for v2 and which
> > >> I repeat below?    
> > > Because I want the nand_bit_wise_majority() function to work with
> > > nsrcbufs > 3 (the ONFI spec says there's at least 3 copy of the param
> > > page, but NAND vendor can decide to put more). Also, if the X copies of
> > > the PARAM are corrupted (which is rather unlikely), that means we
> > > already spent quite a lot of time reading the different copies and
> > > calculating the CRC, so I think we don't care about perf optimizations
> > > when doing bit-wise majority.
> > >    
> > >> The three sample bitwise majority can be implemented without bit level
> > >> manipulation using the identity:
> > >> majority3(a, b, c) = (a & b) | (a & c) | (b & c)
> > >> This can be factorized slightly to (a & (b | c)) | (b & c)
> > >> This enables the operation to be performed 8, 16, 32 or even 64 bits at
> > >> a time depending on the hardware.
> > >>
> > >> This method is not only faster and but also more compact.
> > >>    
> > 
> > I do understand that the ONFI specifications permit more than 3 copies.
> > However elsewhere the proposed code shows no intention of handling other cases.
> > The constant 3 is hard coded in the following lines extracted from the proposed code:
> > ...
> > +    p = kzalloc((sizeof(*p) * 3), GFP_KERNEL);
> > ...
> >       for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
> > ...
> >       if (i == 3) {
> > ...
> > +        const void *srcbufs[3] = {p, p + 1, p + 2};
> > 
> > Moreover the last of these is difficult to generalize.  
> 
> Indeed, this is something to improve. I think Boris' request was to
> prepare changes like this one, to avoid the situation where the code
> does not scale (like this 'p, p + 1, p + 2').

Yep, here is a quick/untested patch [1] making ONFI param page
detection and recovery more robust by reading more than 3 param pages if
there are more. And that's the reason I want a generic bit-wise
majority helper, not something that only works for 3 copies.

[1]http://code.bulix.org/t21eys-335698

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-16  9:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-13  4:30 [PATCH v7] mtd: rawnand: use bit-wise majority to recover the contents of ONFI parameter Wan, Jane (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale)
2018-05-13  9:49 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-05-15  4:45 ` Chris Moore
2018-05-15  7:34   ` Boris Brezillon
2018-05-16  7:32     ` Chris Moore
2018-05-16  7:42       ` Miquel Raynal
2018-05-16  9:08         ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2018-05-16  7:56       ` Boris Brezillon
2018-05-17  4:28         ` Chris Moore

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180516110839.46e881c6@bbrezillon \
    --to=boris.brezillon@bootlin.com \
    --cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=jagdish.gediya@nxp.com \
    --cc=jane.wan@nokia.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
    --cc=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
    --cc=moore@free.fr \
    --cc=prabhakar.kushwaha@nxp.com \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=shawnguo@kernel.org \
    --cc=shreeya.patel23498@gmail.com \
    --cc=ties.bos@nokia.com \
    --cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.