Re: fsl_ifc_nand: are blank pages protected by ECC?

From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Cc: Dipen.Dudhat@freescale.com, richard@nod.at, dwmw2@infradead.org,
	computersforpeace@gmail.com, marek.vasut@gmail.com,
	cyrille.pitchen@atmel.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mark.marshall@omicronenergy.com,
	b44839@freescale.com, prabhakar@freescale.com
Subject: Re: fsl_ifc_nand: are blank pages protected by ECC?
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 09:01:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170422070139.GA15339@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170421154903.2782cd06@bbrezillon>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 970 bytes --]

Hi!

> > Maybe I figured it out. Unfortunately, it is only compile tested. Does
> > it look approximately right?
> 
> Yep that's definitely better. Just one thing missing (see below),
> otherwise it looks good.

Thanks for review. Unfortunately it is still untested, so...

> > +		if (res < 0)
> > +			mtd->ecc_stats.failed++;
> 
> 		else
> 			mtd->ecc_stats.corrected += res;

Ok, I copied this from tango_nand. I'll submit a patch to fix it
there...

> > +
> > +		bitflips = max(res, bitflips);
> > +		buf += pkt_size;
> > +		ecc += ecc_size;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	mtd_ooblayout_ecc(mtd, 1, &oobregion);
> > +	BUG_ON(oobregion.length);
> 
> Probably something you should check at registration time only.

Drive defensively, buy a tank ;-). Ok, I'll delete this one in final
version.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]