On 04/27, Brian Norris wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 08:18:12AM +0530, punnaiah choudary kalluri wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Brian Norris > > <computersforpe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:19:16AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > >> Oh, I thought every driver has to implement that function. ;-\ > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > >> But you're right there is a corner case. > > > > > > And it's not the only one! Right now, there's no guarantee even that > > > read_buf() returns raw data, unmodified by the SoC's controller. Plenty > > > of drivers actually have HW-enabled ECC turned on by default, and so > > > they override the chip->ecc.read_page() (and sometimes > > > chip->ecc.read_page_raw() functions, if we're lucky) with something > > > that pokes the appropriate hardware instead. I expect anything > > > comprehensive here is probably going to have to utilize > > > chip->ecc.read_page_raw(), at least if it's provided by the hardware > > > driver. > > > > Yes, overriding the chip->ecc.read_page_raw would solve this. > > I'm actually suggesting that (in this patch set, for on-die ECC > support), maybe we *shouldn't* override chip->ecc.read_page_raw() and > leave that to be defined by the driver, and then on-die ECC support > should be added in a way that just calls chip->ecc.read_page_raw(). This > should work for any driver that already properly supports the raw > callbacks. >
Hi Richard et al, I'm guessing it's probably too late for the on-die ECC stuff to land in 4.2 at this point. Is there anything I can do to help this along (testing, etc.)? Thanks, Ben -- 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/
