Hi Boris 2017-06-07 22:26 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <[email protected]>: > On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 20:52:15 +0900 > Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The denali_cmdfunc() actually does nothing valuable for >> NAND_CMD_{PAGEPROG,READ0,SEQIN}. >> >> For NAND_CMD_{READ0,SEQIN}, it copies "page" to "denali->page", then >> denali_read_page() and denali_read_page_raw() compare them to check >> if the NAND framework called the callbacks in correct order. >> (Inconsistently, this check is missing from the denali_write_page() >> and denali_write_page_raw().) >> >> The framework is widely tested by many drivers, so this kind of >> sanity check is unneeded. The Denali controller is equipped with >> high level interface for read/write, so let's skip unneeded call >> of cmdfunc(). > > I recently changed the semantic of ecc->write_page[_raw]() when > NAND_ECC_CUSTOM_PAGE_ACCESS is set [1]. I'm not sure your driver waits > for the program command to finish. > I think you should wait for INTR_STATUS__PROGRAM_COMP instead of > INTR_STATUS__DMA_CMD_COMP in write_page() [2], as is done in > write_oob_data().
Thanks for the pointer. I missed your commit because I usually develop based on Linus' tree instead of linux-next. I will fix this commit. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
