On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:23:46 +0800
Liang Yang <liang.y...@amlogic.com> wrote:
> >> + mtd->ecc_stats.failed++;
> >> + continue;
> >> + }
> >> + mtd->ecc_stats.corrected += ECC_ERR_CNT(*info);
> >> + bitflips = max_t(u32, bitflips, ECC_ERR_CNT(*info));
> >> + }
> >
> > Are you sure you handle correctly empty pages with bf?
> >
> if scramble is enable, i would say yes here.
> when scramble is disabled, i am considering how to use the helper
> nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk, but it seems that i can't get the ecc
> bytes which is caculated by ecc engine.by the way, nfc dma doesn't send
> out the ecc parity bytes.
Even if the ECC engine is disabled?
> so i would suggest using scramble.
>
No, please don't force people to use the scrambler.
> >> +
> >> +const void *
> >> +meson_nand_op_get_dma_safe_output_buf(const struct nand_op_instr *instr)
> >> +{
> >> + if (WARN_ON(instr->type != NAND_OP_DATA_OUT_INSTR))
> >> + return NULL;
> >> +
> >> + if (virt_addr_valid(instr->ctx.data.buf.out) &&
> >> + !object_is_on_stack(instr->ctx.data.buf.out))
> >
> > Can you please create helpers for that? I guess it will help removing
> > these checks once the core will have a DMA-safe approach.
> >
> I will use below definition:
> #define BUFFER_IS_DMA_SAFE(x) \
> (virt_addr_valid((x)) && (!object_is_on_stack((x))))
>
> Is it ok?
Please define a function, not a macro.
