Hi Boris,

2016-11-28 0:21 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com>:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 03:05:55 +0900
> Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> wrote:
>> Currently, is_erased() is called against "buf" twice, so the second
>> call is meaningless.  The second one should be checked against
>> chip->oob_poi.
> IMO, patch 9 to 12 should be squashed in a single patch. All you're
> doing in these patch is fixing the check_erased_page logic.
> You can describe the different broken thing in the commit message, but
> splitting things as you do does not help much.

OK. I will do so.

I realized some mistakes in this part
(both in my patches and in the current mainline code),
so I will rework it in a more sensible chunk.

> Also, please have at nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk() [1] instead of using
> a private method (is_erased()) to check if the page is erased.
> With this method you get bitflips in erased pages correction for free.

I will use this helper, thanks!

With this, I think I answered all of your questions to v1.

(Please tell me if there is something I missed to answer.)

Thanks a lot for your review.

Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Reply via email to