| Message ID | 1413978044-31766-1-git-send-email-lisovy@merica.cz |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Scott Wood |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 13:40 +0200, Rostislav Lisovy wrote: > Commit ff94bc40af3481d47546595ba73c136de6af6929 > ("mtd, ubi, ubifs: resync with Linux-3.14") > accidentally reverted part of the commit > 13f0fd94e3cae6f8a0d9fba5d367e311edc8ebde > ("NAND: Scan bad blocks lazily."). > > Reinstate the change as by commit > fb49454b1b6c7c6e238ac3c0b1e302e73eb1a1ea > ("nand: reinstate lazy bad block scanning") > > Signed-off-by: Rostislav Lisovy <lisovy@merica.cz> > --- > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 10 +++++++--- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) Thanks for catching this. Heiko, this is the sort of thing I was concerned about with the "resync from scratch" approach. -Scott
Hi Scott, Rostislav, On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:42:29 -0600 Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 13:40 +0200, Rostislav Lisovy wrote: > > Commit ff94bc40af3481d47546595ba73c136de6af6929 > > ("mtd, ubi, ubifs: resync with Linux-3.14") > > accidentally reverted part of the commit > > 13f0fd94e3cae6f8a0d9fba5d367e311edc8ebde > > ("NAND: Scan bad blocks lazily."). > > > > Reinstate the change as by commit > > fb49454b1b6c7c6e238ac3c0b1e302e73eb1a1ea > > ("nand: reinstate lazy bad block scanning") > > > > Signed-off-by: Rostislav Lisovy <lisovy@merica.cz> > > --- > > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 10 +++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > Thanks for catching this. > > Heiko, this is the sort of thing I was concerned about with the "resync > from scratch" approach. > I do not believe resync is a bad idea, of course we should be very careful not to break existing features. I recommend to surround this code with "#ifdef __UBOOT__ ... #endif" as we have done for the other parts. BTW, we attempt to probe NAND devices during the boot sequence just for displaying the device size, right? NAND: **** MiB If so, can we postpone the whole of nand_scan until we use it? I am not sure about this, though. Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 12:40 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi Scott, Rostislav, > > On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:42:29 -0600 > Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 13:40 +0200, Rostislav Lisovy wrote: > > > Commit ff94bc40af3481d47546595ba73c136de6af6929 > > > ("mtd, ubi, ubifs: resync with Linux-3.14") > > > accidentally reverted part of the commit > > > 13f0fd94e3cae6f8a0d9fba5d367e311edc8ebde > > > ("NAND: Scan bad blocks lazily."). > > > > > > Reinstate the change as by commit > > > fb49454b1b6c7c6e238ac3c0b1e302e73eb1a1ea > > > ("nand: reinstate lazy bad block scanning") > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rostislav Lisovy <lisovy@merica.cz> > > > --- > > > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 10 +++++++--- > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > Thanks for catching this. > > > > Heiko, this is the sort of thing I was concerned about with the "resync > > from scratch" approach. > > > > I do not believe resync is a bad idea, > of course we should be very careful not to break existing features. I'm not saying don't sync -- I'm saying do it by generating a diff based on the last sync (which is what all the previous NAND updates did), rather than throwing out the U-Boot code and replacing it with Linux files, and then fixing any problems encountered (which may be a subset of the problems existing). > I recommend to surround this code with "#ifdef __UBOOT__ ... #endif" > as we have done for the other parts. I recommend not making such a mess, for reasons I've described previously. > BTW, we attempt to probe NAND devices during the boot sequence > just for displaying the device size, right? > > NAND: **** MiB > > > If so, can we postpone the whole of nand_scan > until we use it? I am not sure about this, though. Possibly. IIRC someone once posted a patch trying to do this, but it was missing an initialization check on some paths where NAND could be accessed, and the patchset never got respun. -Scott
Hi Scott, On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 23:49:36 -0600 Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 12:40 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > Hi Scott, Rostislav, > > > > On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:42:29 -0600 > > Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 13:40 +0200, Rostislav Lisovy wrote: > > > > Commit ff94bc40af3481d47546595ba73c136de6af6929 > > > > ("mtd, ubi, ubifs: resync with Linux-3.14") > > > > accidentally reverted part of the commit > > > > 13f0fd94e3cae6f8a0d9fba5d367e311edc8ebde > > > > ("NAND: Scan bad blocks lazily."). > > > > > > > > Reinstate the change as by commit > > > > fb49454b1b6c7c6e238ac3c0b1e302e73eb1a1ea > > > > ("nand: reinstate lazy bad block scanning") > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rostislav Lisovy <lisovy@merica.cz> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 10 +++++++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > Thanks for catching this. > > > > > > Heiko, this is the sort of thing I was concerned about with the "resync > > > from scratch" approach. > > > > > > > I do not believe resync is a bad idea, > > of course we should be very careful not to break existing features. > > I'm not saying don't sync -- I'm saying do it by generating a diff based > on the last sync (which is what all the previous NAND updates did), > rather than throwing out the U-Boot code and replacing it with Linux > files, and then fixing any problems encountered (which may be a subset > of the problems existing). > > > I recommend to surround this code with "#ifdef __UBOOT__ ... #endif" > > as we have done for the other parts. > > I recommend not making such a mess, for reasons I've described > previously. > > > BTW, we attempt to probe NAND devices during the boot sequence > > just for displaying the device size, right? > > > > NAND: **** MiB > > > > > > If so, can we postpone the whole of nand_scan > > until we use it? I am not sure about this, though. > > Possibly. IIRC someone once posted a patch trying to do this, but it > was missing an initialization check on some paths where NAND could be > accessed, and the patchset never got respun. > In Simon's driver model, devices are probed when they are actually used. Perhaps we can change this when we introduce driver model to NAND. Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Hello Scott, Rostislav, Am 03.11.2014 22:42, schrieb Scott Wood: > On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 13:40 +0200, Rostislav Lisovy wrote: >> Commit ff94bc40af3481d47546595ba73c136de6af6929 >> ("mtd, ubi, ubifs: resync with Linux-3.14") >> accidentally reverted part of the commit >> 13f0fd94e3cae6f8a0d9fba5d367e311edc8ebde >> ("NAND: Scan bad blocks lazily."). >> >> Reinstate the change as by commit >> fb49454b1b6c7c6e238ac3c0b1e302e73eb1a1ea >> ("nand: reinstate lazy bad block scanning") >> >> Signed-off-by: Rostislav Lisovy<lisovy@merica.cz> >> --- >> drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 10 +++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > Thanks for catching this. Yep! I tested it on the siemens am335x boards so Acked-by: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de> > Heiko, this is the sort of thing I was concerned about with the "resync > from scratch" approach. I know, but the rebase was also error prone (at least in my attempts ...) As we have now a clear defined base, maybe a resync with the help from git works now in future? bye, Heiko
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c index 0b6e7ee..70e780c 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c @@ -634,6 +634,11 @@ static int nand_block_checkbad(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, int getchip, { struct nand_chip *chip = mtd->priv; + if (!(chip->options & NAND_BBT_SCANNED)) { + chip->scan_bbt(mtd); + chip->options |= NAND_BBT_SCANNED; + } + if (!chip->bbt) return chip->block_bad(mtd, ofs, getchip); @@ -4322,10 +4327,9 @@ int nand_scan_tail(struct mtd_info *mtd) /* Check, if we should skip the bad block table scan */ if (chip->options & NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN) - return 0; + chip->options |= NAND_BBT_SCANNED; - /* Build bad block table */ - return chip->scan_bbt(mtd); + return 0; } EXPORT_SYMBOL(nand_scan_tail);
Commit ff94bc40af3481d47546595ba73c136de6af6929 ("mtd, ubi, ubifs: resync with Linux-3.14") accidentally reverted part of the commit 13f0fd94e3cae6f8a0d9fba5d367e311edc8ebde ("NAND: Scan bad blocks lazily."). Reinstate the change as by commit fb49454b1b6c7c6e238ac3c0b1e302e73eb1a1ea ("nand: reinstate lazy bad block scanning") Signed-off-by: Rostislav Lisovy <lisovy@merica.cz> --- drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 10 +++++++--- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)