| Message ID | 1480183585-592-10-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi Boris, 2016-11-28 0:21 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>: > On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 03:05:55 +0900 > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote: > >> Currently, is_erased() is called against "buf" twice, so the second >> call is meaningless. The second one should be checked against >> chip->oob_poi. >> > > IMO, patch 9 to 12 should be squashed in a single patch. All you're > doing in these patch is fixing the check_erased_page logic. > > You can describe the different broken thing in the commit message, but > splitting things as you do does not help much. OK. I will do so. I realized some mistakes in this part (both in my patches and in the current mainline code), so I will rework it in a more sensible chunk. > Also, please have at nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk() [1] instead of using > a private method (is_erased()) to check if the page is erased. > With this method you get bitflips in erased pages correction for free. I will use this helper, thanks! With this, I think I answered all of your questions to v1. (Please tell me if there is something I missed to answer.) Thanks a lot for your review. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 13:33:58 +0900 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote: > Hi Boris, > > > 2016-11-28 0:21 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>: > > On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 03:05:55 +0900 > > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote: > > > >> Currently, is_erased() is called against "buf" twice, so the second > >> call is meaningless. The second one should be checked against > >> chip->oob_poi. > >> > > > > IMO, patch 9 to 12 should be squashed in a single patch. All you're > > doing in these patch is fixing the check_erased_page logic. > > > > You can describe the different broken thing in the commit message, but > > splitting things as you do does not help much. > > > OK. I will do so. > > I realized some mistakes in this part > (both in my patches and in the current mainline code), > so I will rework it in a more sensible chunk. > > > > Also, please have at nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk() [1] instead of using > > a private method (is_erased()) to check if the page is erased. > > With this method you get bitflips in erased pages correction for free. > > I will use this helper, thanks! > > > > > With this, I think I answered all of your questions to v1. You did. I'm waiting for the v2 now ;) > > (Please tell me if there is something I missed to answer.) > > Thanks a lot for your review. > > >
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/denali.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/denali.c index cbc7f75..753e9a02 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/denali.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/denali.c @@ -1160,7 +1160,7 @@ static int denali_read_page(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip, if (check_erased_page) { if (!is_erased(buf, mtd->writesize)) mtd->ecc_stats.failed++; - if (!is_erased(buf, mtd->oobsize)) + if (!is_erased(chip->oob_poi, mtd->oobsize)) mtd->ecc_stats.failed++; } }
Currently, is_erased() is called against "buf" twice, so the second call is meaningless. The second one should be checked against chip->oob_poi. Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> --- drivers/mtd/nand/denali.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.7.4