On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:29:05 +0800
Liang Yang <liang.y...@amlogic.com> wrote:
> > How about defining that the HW returns an array of __le64 instead and then
> > define the following macros which you can use after converting in the
> > CPU endianness
> >
> > #define ECC_GET_PROTECTED_OOB_BYTE(x, y) (((x) >> (8 * (1 + y)) &
> > GENMASK(7, 0))
> > #define ECC_COMPLETE BIT(31)
> > #define ECC_ERR_CNT(x) (((x) >> 24) & GENMASK(5, 0))
> >
> > (I'm not entirely sure the field positions are correct, but I'll let you
> > check that).
> >
> ok. i think it should be:
>
> #define ECC_GET_PROTECTED_OOB_BYTE(x, y) (((x) >> (8 * y) &
> GENMASK(7, 0))
>
> if x represents the u64 and y represents the index of the u64.
Absolutely.
>
>
>
> >> +
> >> +#define PER_INFO_BYTE (sizeof(struct meson_nfc_info_format))
> >> +
> >> +struct meson_nfc_nand_chip {
> >> + struct list_head node;
> >> + struct nand_chip nand;
> >> + bool is_scramble;
> >
> > I think I already mentioned the NAND_NEED_SCRAMBLING flag []. Please
> > drop this field and test (chip->flags & NAND_NEED_SCRAMBLING) instead.
> >
> em, i use NAND_NEED_SCRAMBLING and is_scramble is set:
> static int meson_nand_attach_chip(struct nand_chip *nand)
> {
> ......
> meson_chip->is_scramble =
> (nand->options & NAND_NEED_SCRAMBLING) ? 1 : 0;
> ......
> }
Why do you need to add a new field then? Just test
nand->options & NAND_NEED_SCRAMBLING directly or provide a helper
function that does that.
