Linux-mtd Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / Atom feed
* [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again after nand_detect
@ 2019-02-07  9:57 Masahiro Yamada
  2019-02-07 10:16 ` Miquel Raynal
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Masahiro Yamada @ 2019-02-07  9:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-mtd, Boris Brezillon, Miquel Raynal
  Cc: Marek Vasut, Richard Weinberger, Boris Brezillon, linux-kernel,
	Masahiro Yamada, Brian Norris, David Woodhouse

nand_scan_ident() calls onfi_fill_data_interface() at its entry
to set up the initial timing parameters.

The timing parameters are needed not only for ->setup_data_interface(),
but also for giving the correct delay to NAND_OP_WAIT_RDY, for example.

If the driver sets the NAND_KEEP_TIMINGS flag, or does not support
->setup_data_interface() hook, those parameters will never updated.

Before nand_detect(), we never know whether the chip is ONFi or not.
So, onfi_fill_data_interface() has to assume the worst case, i.e.
non-ONFi.

After nand_detect(), if the chip turns out to be ONFi-compliant,
we can optimize tPROG_max, tBERS_max, etc.

Call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
---

 drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
index 9b3d7ff..35e543c 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
@@ -5040,6 +5040,9 @@ static int nand_scan_ident(struct nand_chip *chip, unsigned int maxchips,
 
 	nand_deselect_target(chip);
 
+	/* If the chip turns out ONFi, we can optimize timing parameters. */
+	onfi_fill_data_interface(chip, NAND_SDR_IFACE, 0);
+
 	/* Check for a chip array */
 	for (i = 1; i < maxchips; i++) {
 		u8 id[2];
-- 
2.7.4


______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again after nand_detect
  2019-02-07  9:57 [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again after nand_detect Masahiro Yamada
@ 2019-02-07 10:16 ` Miquel Raynal
  2019-02-07 10:46   ` Masahiro Yamada
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Miquel Raynal @ 2019-02-07 10:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Masahiro Yamada
  Cc: Marek Vasut, Richard Weinberger, Boris Brezillon, linux-kernel,
	Boris Brezillon, linux-mtd, Brian Norris, David Woodhouse

Hi Masahiro,

Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote on Thu,  7 Feb
2019 18:57:56 +0900:

> nand_scan_ident() calls onfi_fill_data_interface() at its entry
> to set up the initial timing parameters.
> 
> The timing parameters are needed not only for ->setup_data_interface(),
> but also for giving the correct delay to NAND_OP_WAIT_RDY, for example.
> 
> If the driver sets the NAND_KEEP_TIMINGS flag, or does not support
> ->setup_data_interface() hook, those parameters will never updated. 

                                                            ^ be 

> 
> Before nand_detect(), we never know whether the chip is ONFi or not.
> So, onfi_fill_data_interface() has to assume the worst case, i.e.
> non-ONFi.

s/ONFi/ONFI/?

> 
> After nand_detect(), if the chip turns out to be ONFi-compliant,
> we can optimize tPROG_max, tBERS_max, etc.
> 
> Call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again.

Sorry but I don't get why this is needed as there is the same call at
the top of this function. Can you be more specific on where/when the
missing call produces a failure?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
> ---
> 
>  drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> index 9b3d7ff..35e543c 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> @@ -5040,6 +5040,9 @@ static int nand_scan_ident(struct nand_chip *chip, unsigned int maxchips,
>  
>  	nand_deselect_target(chip);
>  
> +	/* If the chip turns out ONFi, we can optimize timing parameters. */
> +	onfi_fill_data_interface(chip, NAND_SDR_IFACE, 0);
> +
>  	/* Check for a chip array */
>  	for (i = 1; i < maxchips; i++) {
>  		u8 id[2];


Thanks,
Miquèl

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again after nand_detect
  2019-02-07 10:16 ` Miquel Raynal
@ 2019-02-07 10:46   ` Masahiro Yamada
  2019-02-07 10:51     ` Masahiro Yamada
  2019-02-07 13:01     ` Miquel Raynal
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Masahiro Yamada @ 2019-02-07 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Miquel Raynal
  Cc: Marek Vasut, Richard Weinberger, Boris Brezillon,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List, Boris Brezillon, linux-mtd,
	Brian Norris, David Woodhouse

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 7:16 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote on Thu,  7 Feb
> 2019 18:57:56 +0900:
>
> > nand_scan_ident() calls onfi_fill_data_interface() at its entry
> > to set up the initial timing parameters.
> >
> > The timing parameters are needed not only for ->setup_data_interface(),
> > but also for giving the correct delay to NAND_OP_WAIT_RDY, for example.
> >
> > If the driver sets the NAND_KEEP_TIMINGS flag, or does not support
> > ->setup_data_interface() hook, those parameters will never updated.
>
>                                                             ^ be

Will fix (if v2 is welcome)


> >
> > Before nand_detect(), we never know whether the chip is ONFi or not.
> > So, onfi_fill_data_interface() has to assume the worst case, i.e.
> > non-ONFi.
>
> s/ONFi/ONFI/?

Will fix.

Looks like I was misunderstanding
maybe because the letter 'I' in the logo
(http://www.onfi.org/)
looks like a lowercase...




>
> >
> > After nand_detect(), if the chip turns out to be ONFi-compliant,
> > we can optimize tPROG_max, tBERS_max, etc.
> >
> > Call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again.
>
> Sorry but I don't get why this is needed as there is the same call at
> the top of this function. Can you be more specific on where/when the
> missing call produces a failure?


onfi_fill_data_interface() sets different values
for tPROG_max, tBER_max, tR_max, tCCS_min
depending on whether the chip is ONFI or not.

For the first call, onfi_fill_data_interface()
chooses the else-part since we never know
the chip specification at this point.

If we call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again
after nand_detect(), it may choose the if-part.


If a driver supports ->setup_data_interface(),
nand_init_data_interface() will set the optimal
timing parameters anyway.

But, if a driver does not support ->setup_data_interface(),
it will not happen since nand_has_setup_data_iface() returns false.





> >
> > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
> > ---
> >
> >  drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > index 9b3d7ff..35e543c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> > @@ -5040,6 +5040,9 @@ static int nand_scan_ident(struct nand_chip *chip, unsigned int maxchips,
> >
> >       nand_deselect_target(chip);
> >
> > +     /* If the chip turns out ONFi, we can optimize timing parameters. */
> > +     onfi_fill_data_interface(chip, NAND_SDR_IFACE, 0);
> > +
> >       /* Check for a chip array */
> >       for (i = 1; i < maxchips; i++) {
> >               u8 id[2];
>
>
> Thanks,
> Miquèl



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again after nand_detect
  2019-02-07 10:46   ` Masahiro Yamada
@ 2019-02-07 10:51     ` Masahiro Yamada
  2019-02-07 13:01     ` Miquel Raynal
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Masahiro Yamada @ 2019-02-07 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Miquel Raynal
  Cc: Marek Vasut, Richard Weinberger, Boris Brezillon,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List, Boris Brezillon, linux-mtd,
	Brian Norris, David Woodhouse

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 7:46 PM Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 7:16 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Masahiro,
> >
> > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote on Thu,  7 Feb
> > 2019 18:57:56 +0900:
> >
> > > nand_scan_ident() calls onfi_fill_data_interface() at its entry
> > > to set up the initial timing parameters.
> > >
> > > The timing parameters are needed not only for ->setup_data_interface(),
> > > but also for giving the correct delay to NAND_OP_WAIT_RDY, for example.
> > >
> > > If the driver sets the NAND_KEEP_TIMINGS flag, or does not support
> > > ->setup_data_interface() hook, those parameters will never updated.
> >
> >                                                             ^ be
>
> Will fix (if v2 is welcome)
>
>
> > >
> > > Before nand_detect(), we never know whether the chip is ONFi or not.
> > > So, onfi_fill_data_interface() has to assume the worst case, i.e.
> > > non-ONFi.
> >
> > s/ONFi/ONFI/?
>
> Will fix.
>
> Looks like I was misunderstanding
> maybe because the letter 'I' in the logo
> (http://www.onfi.org/)
> looks like a lowercase...


http://www.onfi.org/ says

"Discover the advantages of an ONFi world"


Perhaps, is ONFi also correct??

Anyway, I will align with the majority.

There are only three instances in the kernel tree.


$ git grep ONFi
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_legacy.c:      * a byte. The ONFi spec
(Revision 3.1; 2012-09-19, Section 2.16) reads:
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_legacy.c:             /* EZ-NAND can take
upto 250ms as per ONFi v4.0 */
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_legacy.c:             /* EZ-NAND can take
upto 250ms as per ONFi v4.0 */


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again after nand_detect
  2019-02-07 10:46   ` Masahiro Yamada
  2019-02-07 10:51     ` Masahiro Yamada
@ 2019-02-07 13:01     ` Miquel Raynal
  2019-02-08  8:35       ` Masahiro Yamada
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Miquel Raynal @ 2019-02-07 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Masahiro Yamada
  Cc: Marek Vasut, Richard Weinberger, Boris Brezillon,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List, Boris Brezillon, linux-mtd,
	Brian Norris, David Woodhouse

Hi Masahiro,

Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote on Thu, 7 Feb
2019 19:46:54 +0900:

> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 7:16 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Masahiro,
> >
> > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote on Thu,  7 Feb
> > 2019 18:57:56 +0900:
> >  
> > > nand_scan_ident() calls onfi_fill_data_interface() at its entry
> > > to set up the initial timing parameters.
> > >
> > > The timing parameters are needed not only for ->setup_data_interface(),
> > > but also for giving the correct delay to NAND_OP_WAIT_RDY, for example.
> > >
> > > If the driver sets the NAND_KEEP_TIMINGS flag, or does not support  
> > > ->setup_data_interface() hook, those parameters will never updated.  
> >
> >                                                             ^ be  
> 
> Will fix (if v2 is welcome)
> 
> 
> > >
> > > Before nand_detect(), we never know whether the chip is ONFi or not.
> > > So, onfi_fill_data_interface() has to assume the worst case, i.e.
> > > non-ONFi.  
> >
> > s/ONFi/ONFI/?  
> 
> Will fix.
> 
> Looks like I was misunderstanding
> maybe because the letter 'I' in the logo
> (http://www.onfi.org/)
> looks like a lowercase...
> 
> 

Oh right. I don't know what's best. Pick your favorite :)

> 
> 
> >  
> > >
> > > After nand_detect(), if the chip turns out to be ONFi-compliant,
> > > we can optimize tPROG_max, tBERS_max, etc.
> > >
> > > Call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again.  
> >
> > Sorry but I don't get why this is needed as there is the same call at
> > the top of this function. Can you be more specific on where/when the
> > missing call produces a failure?  
> 
> 
> onfi_fill_data_interface() sets different values
> for tPROG_max, tBER_max, tR_max, tCCS_min
> depending on whether the chip is ONFI or not.
> 
> For the first call, onfi_fill_data_interface()
> chooses the else-part since we never know
> the chip specification at this point.
> 
> If we call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again
> after nand_detect(), it may choose the if-part.
> 
> 
> If a driver supports ->setup_data_interface(),
> nand_init_data_interface() will set the optimal
> timing parameters anyway.
> 
> But, if a driver does not support ->setup_data_interface(),
> it will not happen since nand_has_setup_data_iface() returns false.

And I think this is the expected behavior. Calling again
onfi_fill_data_interface() would probably enhance a bit the timings.
The effect is that later exchanges with the NAND chip would be just a
bit faster. But if you care about performance, then why not implementing
->setup_data_interface()? Even a dummy implementation would do the
trick: only accept timing mode 0 without any changes on the controller
side.

Unless you give me a use case where this is not possible, I don't think
it is worth changing this path.


Thanks,
Miquèl

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again after nand_detect
  2019-02-07 13:01     ` Miquel Raynal
@ 2019-02-08  8:35       ` Masahiro Yamada
  2019-02-08 21:45         ` Miquel Raynal
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Masahiro Yamada @ 2019-02-08  8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Miquel Raynal
  Cc: Boris Brezillon, Richard Weinberger, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
	Marek Vasut, linux-mtd, Brian Norris, David Woodhouse

HI Miquel,

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 10:02 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote on Thu, 7 Feb
> 2019 19:46:54 +0900:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 7:16 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Masahiro,
> > >
> > > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote on Thu,  7 Feb
> > > 2019 18:57:56 +0900:
> > >
> > > > nand_scan_ident() calls onfi_fill_data_interface() at its entry
> > > > to set up the initial timing parameters.
> > > >
> > > > The timing parameters are needed not only for ->setup_data_interface(),
> > > > but also for giving the correct delay to NAND_OP_WAIT_RDY, for example.
> > > >
> > > > If the driver sets the NAND_KEEP_TIMINGS flag, or does not support
> > > > ->setup_data_interface() hook, those parameters will never updated.
> > >
> > >                                                             ^ be
> >
> > Will fix (if v2 is welcome)
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Before nand_detect(), we never know whether the chip is ONFi or not.
> > > > So, onfi_fill_data_interface() has to assume the worst case, i.e.
> > > > non-ONFi.
> > >
> > > s/ONFi/ONFI/?
> >
> > Will fix.
> >
> > Looks like I was misunderstanding
> > maybe because the letter 'I' in the logo
> > (http://www.onfi.org/)
> > looks like a lowercase...
> >
> >
>
> Oh right. I don't know what's best. Pick your favorite :)
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > After nand_detect(), if the chip turns out to be ONFi-compliant,
> > > > we can optimize tPROG_max, tBERS_max, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again.
> > >
> > > Sorry but I don't get why this is needed as there is the same call at
> > > the top of this function. Can you be more specific on where/when the
> > > missing call produces a failure?
> >
> >
> > onfi_fill_data_interface() sets different values
> > for tPROG_max, tBER_max, tR_max, tCCS_min
> > depending on whether the chip is ONFI or not.
> >
> > For the first call, onfi_fill_data_interface()
> > chooses the else-part since we never know
> > the chip specification at this point.
> >
> > If we call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again
> > after nand_detect(), it may choose the if-part.
> >
> >
> > If a driver supports ->setup_data_interface(),
> > nand_init_data_interface() will set the optimal
> > timing parameters anyway.
> >
> > But, if a driver does not support ->setup_data_interface(),
> > it will not happen since nand_has_setup_data_iface() returns false.
>
> And I think this is the expected behavior. Calling again
> onfi_fill_data_interface() would probably enhance a bit the timings.
> The effect is that later exchanges with the NAND chip would be just a
> bit faster. But if you care about performance, then why not implementing
> ->setup_data_interface()? Even a dummy implementation would do the
> trick: only accept timing mode 0 without any changes on the controller
> side.


My driver (denali) does implement ->setup_data_interface().

When I was testing this thoroughly on my board,
I noticed the timing parameters were slightly changed
after nand_detect() detected ONFI chip.

> Unless you give me a use case where this is not possible, I don't think
> it is worth changing this path.

Only the use case I can come up with is when NAND_KEEP_TIMINGS was set.
But, it is just a matter of timeout values.

So, please throw away this patch.


>
> Thanks,
> Miquèl
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again after nand_detect
  2019-02-08  8:35       ` Masahiro Yamada
@ 2019-02-08 21:45         ` Miquel Raynal
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Miquel Raynal @ 2019-02-08 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Masahiro Yamada
  Cc: Boris Brezillon, Richard Weinberger, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
	Marek Vasut, linux-mtd, Brian Norris, David Woodhouse

Hi Masahiro,

Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote on Fri, 8 Feb
2019 17:35:32 +0900:

> HI Miquel,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 10:02 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Masahiro,
> >
> > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote on Thu, 7 Feb
> > 2019 19:46:54 +0900:
> >  
> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 7:16 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:  
> > > >
> > > > Hi Masahiro,
> > > >
> > > > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote on Thu,  7 Feb
> > > > 2019 18:57:56 +0900:
> > > >  
> > > > > nand_scan_ident() calls onfi_fill_data_interface() at its entry
> > > > > to set up the initial timing parameters.
> > > > >
> > > > > The timing parameters are needed not only for ->setup_data_interface(),
> > > > > but also for giving the correct delay to NAND_OP_WAIT_RDY, for example.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the driver sets the NAND_KEEP_TIMINGS flag, or does not support  
> > > > > ->setup_data_interface() hook, those parameters will never updated.  
> > > >
> > > >                                                             ^ be  
> > >
> > > Will fix (if v2 is welcome)
> > >
> > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > Before nand_detect(), we never know whether the chip is ONFi or not.
> > > > > So, onfi_fill_data_interface() has to assume the worst case, i.e.
> > > > > non-ONFi.  
> > > >
> > > > s/ONFi/ONFI/?  
> > >
> > > Will fix.
> > >
> > > Looks like I was misunderstanding
> > > maybe because the letter 'I' in the logo
> > > (http://www.onfi.org/)
> > > looks like a lowercase...
> > >
> > >  
> >
> > Oh right. I don't know what's best. Pick your favorite :)
> >  
> > >
> > >  
> > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > After nand_detect(), if the chip turns out to be ONFi-compliant,
> > > > > we can optimize tPROG_max, tBERS_max, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again.  
> > > >
> > > > Sorry but I don't get why this is needed as there is the same call at
> > > > the top of this function. Can you be more specific on where/when the
> > > > missing call produces a failure?  
> > >
> > >
> > > onfi_fill_data_interface() sets different values
> > > for tPROG_max, tBER_max, tR_max, tCCS_min
> > > depending on whether the chip is ONFI or not.
> > >
> > > For the first call, onfi_fill_data_interface()
> > > chooses the else-part since we never know
> > > the chip specification at this point.
> > >
> > > If we call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again
> > > after nand_detect(), it may choose the if-part.
> > >
> > >
> > > If a driver supports ->setup_data_interface(),
> > > nand_init_data_interface() will set the optimal
> > > timing parameters anyway.
> > >
> > > But, if a driver does not support ->setup_data_interface(),
> > > it will not happen since nand_has_setup_data_iface() returns false.  
> >
> > And I think this is the expected behavior. Calling again
> > onfi_fill_data_interface() would probably enhance a bit the timings.
> > The effect is that later exchanges with the NAND chip would be just a
> > bit faster. But if you care about performance, then why not implementing  
> > ->setup_data_interface()? Even a dummy implementation would do the  
> > trick: only accept timing mode 0 without any changes on the controller
> > side.  
> 
> 
> My driver (denali) does implement ->setup_data_interface().

Fortunately, yes! :)

> 
> When I was testing this thoroughly on my board,
> I noticed the timing parameters were slightly changed
> after nand_detect() detected ONFI chip.

I see.

> 
> > Unless you give me a use case where this is not possible, I don't think
> > it is worth changing this path.  
> 
> Only the use case I can come up with is when NAND_KEEP_TIMINGS was set.
> But, it is just a matter of timeout values.
> 
> So, please throw away this patch.

Ok!


Thanks anyway for the proposal!
Miquèl

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-02-07  9:57 [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: call onfi_fill_data_interface() once again after nand_detect Masahiro Yamada
2019-02-07 10:16 ` Miquel Raynal
2019-02-07 10:46   ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-02-07 10:51     ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-02-07 13:01     ` Miquel Raynal
2019-02-08  8:35       ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-02-08 21:45         ` Miquel Raynal

Linux-mtd Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/0 linux-mtd/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-mtd linux-mtd/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd \
		linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org linux-mtd@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-mtd


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.infradead.lists.linux-mtd


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox