2017-12-05 19:28 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <[email protected]>: > On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 19:02:26 +0900 > Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Boris, >> >> 2017-12-04 18:10 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon >> <[email protected]>: >> >> >> } >> >> >> >> if (!(chip->options & NAND_OWN_BUFFERS)) { >> >> - nbuf = kzalloc(sizeof(*nbuf), GFP_KERNEL); >> >> - if (!nbuf) >> >> + chip->ecccalc = kmalloc(mtd->oobsize, GFP_KERNEL); >> >> + if (!chip->ecccalc) >> >> return -ENOMEM; >> >> >> >> - nbuf->ecccalc = kmalloc(mtd->oobsize, GFP_KERNEL); >> >> - if (!nbuf->ecccalc) { >> >> + chip->ecccode = kmalloc(mtd->oobsize, GFP_KERNEL); >> >> + if (!chip->ecccode) { >> >> ret = -ENOMEM; >> >> goto err_free_nbuf; >> >> } >> > >> > Hm, again not directly related to this patch, but I wonder if we >> > couldn't allocate those buffers only when they are really needed. >> > For example, most NAND controllers do the ECC calculation/correct >> > in HW and simply don't need those buffers. >> >> >> The only idea I came up with is to add a new flag, >> but I am not sure if you are happy with it >> because we are removing NAND_OWN_BUFFERS. > > All drivers using ->calc/code_buf are providing a ->correct() and/or > ->calculate() method, so I thought we could make the allocation > dependent on the presence of one of these hooks [1]. > > The only exception is the denali driver, but I think we can patch it > to not use the ->code_buf buffer [2].
Cool! > [1]http://code.bulix.org/2ks7yp-236649 > [2]http://code.bulix.org/sxqx7o-236650 > Thanks! I can issue Acked-by for [2]. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
