On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 01:35:52AM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote:
> On 2015-08-01 01:09, Brian Norris wrote:
> >> +static int vf610_nfc_read_page(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip
> >> *chip,
> >> + uint8_t *buf, int oob_required, int page)
> >> +{
> >> + int eccsize = chip->ecc.size;
> >> + int stat;
> >> +
> >> + vf610_nfc_read_buf(mtd, buf, eccsize);
> >> +
> >> + if (oob_required)
> >> + vf610_nfc_read_buf(mtd, chip->oob_poi, mtd->oobsize);
> >
> > To fix the bitflips issue above, you'll just want to unconditionally
> > read the OOB (it's fine to ignore 'oob_required') and...
> >
> >> +
> >> + stat = vf610_nfc_correct_data(mtd, buf);
> >
> > ...pass in chip->oob_poi as a third argument.
> >
>
> Hm, this probably will have an effect on performance, since we usually
> omit the OOB if not requested.
You could test :) I don't really like performance claims without tests.
(I say this because I added the oob_required flag myself, but just for
functional purposes, not performance. Many drivers got by just fine by
always copying the OOB data.)
> I could fetch the OOB from the NAND
> controllers SRAM only if necessary (if HW ECC status is not ok...). Does
> this sound reasonable?
That does.
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
