On 04/28, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 27.04.2015 um 23:35 schrieb Ben Shelton:
> > I tested this against the latest version of the PL353 NAND driver that
> > Punnaiah
> > has been working to upstream (copying her on this message). With a few
> > changes
> > to that driver, I got it most of the way through initialization with on-die
> > ECC
> > enabled, but it segfaults here with a null pointer dereference because the
> > PL353 driver does not implement chip->cmd_ctrl. Instead, it implements a
> > custom override of cmd->cmdfunc that does not call cmd_ctrl. Looking
> > through
> > the other in-tree NAND drivers, it looks like most of them do implement
> > cmd_ctrl, but quite a few of them do not (e.g. au1550nd, denali, docg4).
> >
> > What do you think would be the best way to handle this? It seems like this
> > gap
> > could be bridged from either side -- either the PL353 driver could implement
> > cmd_ctrl, at least as a stub version that provides the expected behavior in
> > this case; or the on-die framework could break this out into a callback
> > function with a default implementation that the driver could override to
> > perform this behavior in the manner of its choosing.
>
> Oh, I thought every driver has to implement that function. ;-\
> But you're right there is a corner case.
>
> What we could do is just using chip->cmdfunc() with a custom NAND command.
> i.e. chip->cmdfunc(mtd, NAND_CMD_READMODE, -1, -1);
>
> Gerhard Sittig tried to introduce such a command some time ago:
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2014-April/053115.html
That sounds reasonable to me. That's similar to how we're checking the
NAND status after reads in our current out-of-tree PL353 driver. We
added the extra command:
+ /*
+ * READ0 command only, for checking read status. Note that the real command
+ * here is 0x00, but we can't differentiate between READ0 where we need to
+ * send a READSTART after the address bytes, or a READ0 by itself, after
+ * a read status command to check the on-die ECC status. The high bit is
+ * written into the unused end_cmd field, so we don't need to mask it off.
+ */
+#define NAND_CMD_READ0_ONLY 0x100
and then added it to the struct pl353_nand_command_format of the driver:
static const struct pl353_nand_command_format pl353_nand_commands[] = {
{NAND_CMD_READ0, NAND_CMD_READSTART, 5, PL353_NAND_CMD_PHASE},
+ {NAND_CMD_READ0_ONLY, NAND_CMD_NONE, 0, NAND_CMD_NONE},
{NAND_CMD_RNDOUT, NAND_CMD_RNDOUTSTART, 2, PL353_NAND_CMD_PHASE},
{NAND_CMD_READID, NAND_CMD_NONE, 1, NAND_CMD_NONE},
{NAND_CMD_STATUS, NAND_CMD_NONE, 0, NAND_CMD_NONE},
>
> Maybe Brian can bring some light into that too...
>
> > When I build this without CONFIG_MTD_NAND_ECC_ON_DIE enabled, I get the
> > following warning here:
> >
> > In file included from drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c:46:0:
> > include/linux/mtd/nand_ondie.h: In function 'nand_read_subpage_on_die':
> > include/linux/mtd/nand_ondie.h:28:1: warning: no return statement in
> > function returning non-void [-Wreturn-type]
> > include/linux/mtd/nand_ondie.h: In function 'nand_read_page_on_die':
> > include/linux/mtd/nand_ondie.h:34:1: warning: no return statement in
> > function returning non-void [-Wreturn-type]
> >
> > Perhaps return an error code here, even though you'll never get past the
> > BUG()?
>
> What gcc is this?
> gcc 4.8 here does not warn, I thought it is smart enough that this function
> does never
> return. Can it be that your .config has CONFIG_BUG=n?
> Anyway, this functions clearly needs a return statement. :)
gcc 4.7.2, and you are correct that I had CONFIG_BUG off. :)
Thanks,
Ben
>
> Thanks,
> //richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
