From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
To: "Hattink, Tjalling [FINT]" <T.Hattink@fugro.nl>
Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: Do not automatically set SUBPAGE_READ flag
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:25:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140224092517.GV17250@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C89EFD3CD56F64468D3D206D683A8D2203041BFE@ldam-msx2.fugro-nl.local>
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:20:05AM +0100, Hattink, Tjalling [FINT] wrote:
> > > The default nand_read_subpage implementation returns -ENOSUPP, so if
> > > you use a large nand chip without a specific read_subpage
> > > implementation the read operations will always fail.
> > >
> > > This functionaliy can be restored when a proper nand_read_subpage is
> > > implemented for the default driver.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tjalling Hattink <t.hattink@fugro.nl>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 4 ----
> > > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > > b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c index 54d8ba3..bfd695b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > > @@ -3562,10 +3562,6 @@ int nand_scan_tail(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> > > /* Invalidate the pagebuffer reference */
> > > chip->pagebuf = -1;
> > >
> > > - /* Large page NAND with SOFT_ECC should support subpage
> reads
> > */
> > > - if ((chip->ecc.mode == NAND_ECC_SOFT) && (chip->page_shift >
> > 9))
> > > - chip->options |= NAND_SUBPAGE_READ;
> > > -
> >
> > Only barebox nand_read_subpage returns -ENOSUPP. The kernel has a
> > default implementation. Wouldn't it be possible (and better) to just
> > remove the return -ENOSUPP from nand_read_subpage and use the code
> > which we already have?
> >
> > Sascha
> >
>
> Hi Sascha,
>
> I will remove the ENOSUPP return code and compare the code with the
> kernel and test it. I'll publish a new patch if I have results (which is
> probably upcoming Friday).
>
> I still wonder though why this -ENOSUPP return is added in the first
> place. The motivation written above it is somewhat unclear to me:
> "Currently we have no users in barebox, so disable this for now"
The motivation was to reduce the binary size. Should we remove the
-ENOSUPP it might be good thinking about the conditions under which we
need the code and add some Kconfig entry for it, or better use existing
ones if possible.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-24 9:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-21 15:23 Hattink, Tjalling [FINT]
2014-02-24 8:53 ` Sascha Hauer
2014-02-24 9:20 ` Hattink, Tjalling [FINT]
2014-02-24 9:25 ` Sascha Hauer [this message]
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=20140224092517.GV17250@pengutronix.de \
--to=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
--cc=T.Hattink@fugro.nl \
--cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox