On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 18:25:06, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 17:57 +0530, Sudhakar Rajashekhara wrote:
> > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/davinci_nand.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/davinci_nand.c
> > > @@ -369,8 +369,9 @@ compare:
> > > * after setting the 4BITECC_ADD_CALC_START bit. So if you immediately
> > > * begin trying to poll for the state, you may fall right out of your
> > > * loop without any of the correction calculations having taken place.
> > > - * The recommendation from the hardware team is to wait till ECC_STATE
> > > - * reads less than 4, which means ECC HW has entered correction state.
> > > + * The recommendation from the hardware team is to initially delay as
> > > + * long as ECC_STATE reads less than 4. After that, ECC HW has entered
> > > + * correction state.
> > > */
> > > do {
> > > ecc_state = (davinci_nand_readl(info,
> > > --
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out, but I have already corrected this and
> > submitted
> > the patch. Artem Bityutskity has pushed this patch to his l2-mtd-2.6 /
> > master
> > tree.
>
> If you mean
>
> commit 1c3275b656045aff9a75bb2c9f3251af1043ebb3
> Author: Sudhakar Rajashekhara <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue Jul 20 15:24:01 2010 -0700
>
> mtd: nand: davinci: correct 4-bit error correction
>
> On TI's DA830/OMAP-L137, DA850/OMAP-L138 and DM365, after setting the
> 4BITECC_ADD_CALC_START bit in the NAND Flash control register to 1 and
> before waiting for the NAND Flash status register to be equal to 1, 2 or
> 3, we have to wait till the ECC HW goes to correction state. Without this
> wait, ECC correction calculations will not be proper.
>
> This has been tested on DA830/OMAP-L137, DA850/OMAP-L138, DM355 and DM365
> EVMs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sudhakar Rajashekhara <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Sneha Narnakaje <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
>
> then it is already in upstream in Linus' tree. I do not have anything else
> from you.
>
Yes, this was the patch I was talking about. But this patch seems little
different than the one I submitted to linux-mtd list at
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/59180/. But I can submit another patch
which corrects it.
Wolfram Sang,
Do you agree that in the above link which shows the patch I have submitted,
the comment matches the code?
Regards,
Sudhakar
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
