| Message ID | 1530863519-5564-5-git-send-email-absahu@codeaurora.org |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Miquel Raynal |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Update for removing driver specific BBM functions | expand |
Hi Abhishek, Abhishek Sahu <absahu@codeaurora.org> wrote on Fri, 6 Jul 2018 13:21:58 +0530: > Remove the NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN to use RAM based BBT. Unless I am understanding it the wrong way, NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN will skip the scan of the on-chip BBT and will scan every block to construct a RAM, based BBT thanks to the BBM. So flash based BBT is already unused and removing this flag is a mistake, right? > Flash based BBT is not used since bootloaders > doesn't have support for the same. > > Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sahu <absahu@codeaurora.org> > --- Thanks, Miquèl
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:15:26 +0200 Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > Hi Abhishek, > > Abhishek Sahu <absahu@codeaurora.org> wrote on Fri, 6 Jul 2018 > 13:21:58 +0530: > > > Remove the NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN to use RAM based BBT. > > Unless I am understanding it the wrong way, NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN will skip > the scan of the on-chip BBT and will scan every block to construct a > RAM, based BBT thanks to the BBM. > > So flash based BBT is already unused and removing this flag is a > mistake, right? ->scan_bbt() is also taking care of building the in-RAM BBT based on BBM when no on-flash BBT is provided, so I think it's the right thing to do. > > > Flash based BBT is not used since bootloaders > > doesn't have support for the same. > > > > Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sahu <absahu@codeaurora.org> > > --- > > Thanks, > Miquèl >
Hi Boris, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> wrote on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:36:37 +0200: > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:15:26 +0200 > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > Hi Abhishek, > > > > Abhishek Sahu <absahu@codeaurora.org> wrote on Fri, 6 Jul 2018 > > 13:21:58 +0530: > > > > > Remove the NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN to use RAM based BBT. > > > > Unless I am understanding it the wrong way, NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN will skip > > the scan of the on-chip BBT and will scan every block to construct a > > RAM, based BBT thanks to the BBM. > > > > So flash based BBT is already unused and removing this flag is a > > mistake, right? > > ->scan_bbt() is also taking care of building the in-RAM BBT based on > BBM when no on-flash BBT is provided, so I think it's the right thing > to do. Oh right. Then doing so is harmless. Thanks for the clarification. Miquèl
Abhishek, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:41:44 +0200: > Hi Boris, > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> wrote on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 > 23:36:37 +0200: > > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:15:26 +0200 > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Abhishek, > > > > > > Abhishek Sahu <absahu@codeaurora.org> wrote on Fri, 6 Jul 2018 > > > 13:21:58 +0530: > > > > > > > Remove the NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN to use RAM based BBT. > > > > > > Unless I am understanding it the wrong way, NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN will skip > > > the scan of the on-chip BBT and will scan every block to construct a > > > RAM, based BBT thanks to the BBM. > > > > > > So flash based BBT is already unused and removing this flag is a > > > mistake, right? > > > > ->scan_bbt() is also taking care of building the in-RAM BBT based on > > BBM when no on-flash BBT is provided, so I think it's the right thing > > to do. > > Oh right. Then doing so is harmless. Could you please update the commit log to reflect this aspect? > > Thanks for the clarification. > Miquèl
On 2018-07-19 03:12, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Abhishek, > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 > 23:41:44 +0200: > >> Hi Boris, >> >> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> wrote on Wed, 18 Jul >> 2018 >> 23:36:37 +0200: >> >> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:15:26 +0200 >> > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Abhishek, >> > > >> > > Abhishek Sahu <absahu@codeaurora.org> wrote on Fri, 6 Jul 2018 >> > > 13:21:58 +0530: >> > > >> > > > Remove the NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN to use RAM based BBT. >> > > >> > > Unless I am understanding it the wrong way, NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN will skip >> > > the scan of the on-chip BBT and will scan every block to construct a >> > > RAM, based BBT thanks to the BBM. >> > > >> > > So flash based BBT is already unused and removing this flag is a >> > > mistake, right? >> > >> > ->scan_bbt() is also taking care of building the in-RAM BBT based on >> > BBM when no on-flash BBT is provided, so I think it's the right thing >> > to do. >> >> Oh right. Then doing so is harmless. > > Could you please update the commit log to reflect this aspect? > Thanks Miquel and Boris. I will update the commit log. Regards, Abhishek
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/qcom_nandc.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/qcom_nandc.c index 9e6b383..6fb85d3 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/qcom_nandc.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/qcom_nandc.c @@ -2750,8 +2750,7 @@ static int qcom_nand_host_init(struct qcom_nand_controller *nandc, chip->get_features = nand_get_set_features_notsupp; chip->controller = &nandc->controller; - chip->options |= NAND_NO_SUBPAGE_WRITE | NAND_USE_BOUNCE_BUFFER | - NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN; + chip->options |= NAND_NO_SUBPAGE_WRITE | NAND_USE_BOUNCE_BUFFER; /* set up initial status value */ host->status = NAND_STATUS_READY | NAND_STATUS_WP;
Remove the NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN to use RAM based BBT. Flash based BBT is not used since bootloaders doesn't have support for the same. Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sahu <absahu@codeaurora.org> --- drivers/mtd/nand/raw/qcom_nandc.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)