Hi Abhishek,

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:03:58 +0530, Abhishek Sahu
<abs...@codeaurora.org> wrote:

> On 2018-04-10 14:29, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Abhishek,  
> > > On Wed,  4 Apr 2018 18:12:19 +0530, Abhishek Sahu  
> > <abs...@codeaurora.org> wrote:  
> > >> The NAND flash controller generates ECC uncorrectable error  
> >> first in case of completely erased page. Currently driver
> >> applies the erased page detection logic for other operation
> >> errors also so fix this and return EIO for other operational
> >> errors.
> > > I am sorry I don't understand very well what is the purpose of this  
> > patch, could you please explain it again?  
> > > Do you mean that you want to avoid having rising ECC errors when you  
> > read erased pages?
> >   Thanks Miquel for your review.  
> 
>   QCOM NAND flash controller has in built erased page
>   detection HW.
>   Following is the flow in the HW if controller tries
>   to read erased page
> 
>   1. First ECC uncorrectable error will be generated from
>      ECC engine since ECC engine first calculates the ECC with
>      all 0xff and match the calculated ECC with ECC code in OOB
>      (which is again all 0xff).
>   2. After getting ECC error, erased CW detection HW checks if
>      all the bytes in page are 0xff and then it updates the
>      status in separate register NAND_ERASED_CW_DETECT_STATUS
> 
>   So the erased CW detect status should be checked only if
>   ECC engine generated the uncorrectable error.
> 
>   Currently for all other operational errors also (like TIMEOUT,
>   MPU errors etc), the erased CW detect register was being
>   checked.

This is very clear, thanks. I don't know very much this controller so I
think you can add this information in the commit message for future
reference.

> 
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sahu <abs...@codeaurora.org>  
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/mtd/nand/qcom_nandc.c | 8 +++++++-
> >>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)  
> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/qcom_nandc.c >> 
> >> >> b/drivers/mtd/nand/qcom_nandc.c  
> >> index 17321fc..57c16a6 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/qcom_nandc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/qcom_nandc.c
> >> @@ -1578,6 +1578,7 @@ static int parse_read_errors(struct >> 
> >> qcom_nand_host *host, u8 *data_buf,
> >>    struct nand_ecc_ctrl *ecc = &chip->ecc;
> >>    unsigned int max_bitflips = 0;
> >>    struct read_stats *buf;
> >> +  bool flash_op_err = false;
> >>    int i;  
> >> >>         buf = (struct read_stats *)nandc->reg_read_buf;  
> >> @@ -1599,7 +1600,7 @@ static int parse_read_errors(struct >> 
> >> qcom_nand_host *host, u8 *data_buf,
> >>            buffer = le32_to_cpu(buf->buffer);
> >>            erased_cw = le32_to_cpu(buf->erased_cw);  
> >> >> -               if (flash & (FS_OP_ERR | FS_MPU_ERR)) {  
> >> +          if ((flash & FS_OP_ERR) && (buffer & BS_UNCORRECTABLE_BIT)) {
> > > And later you have another "if (buffer & BS_UNCORRECTABLE_BIT)" which  
> > is then redundant, unless that is not what you actually want to do?  
> 
>   Yes. That check seems to be redundant. I will fix that.
> 
> > > Maybe you can add comments before the if ()/ else if () to explain in  
> > which case you enter each branch.  
> 
>   Sure. That would be better. Will add the same in next patch set.
> 
> > >>                          bool erased;  
> >> >>                         /* ignore erased codeword errors */  
> >> @@ -1641,6 +1642,8 @@ static int parse_read_errors(struct >> 
> >> qcom_nand_host *host, u8 *data_buf,
> >>                                            max_t(unsigned int, 
> >> max_bitflips, ret);
> >>                            }
> >>                    }
> >> +          } else if (flash & (FS_OP_ERR | FS_MPU_ERR)) {
> >> +                  flash_op_err = true;
> >>            } else {
> >>                    unsigned int stat;  
> >> >> @@ -1654,6 +1657,9 @@ static int parse_read_errors(struct >> 
> >> >> qcom_nand_host *host, u8 *data_buf,  
> >>                    oob_buf += oob_len + ecc->bytes;
> >>    }  
> >> >> +       if (flash_op_err)  
> >> +          return -EIO;
> >> +
> > > In you are propagating an error related to the controller, this is  
> > fine, but I think you just want to raise the fact that a NAND
> > uncorrectable error occurred, in this case you should just increment
> > mtd->ecc_stats.failed and return 0 (returning max_bitflips here would > be
> > fine too has it would be 0 too).  
> 
>    The flash_op_err will be for other operational errors only (like timeout,
>    MPU error, device failure etc). For correctable errors,
> 
>    ret = nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(data_buf,
>                            data_len, eccbuf, ecclen, oob_buf,
>                            extraooblen, ecc->strength);

Why do you need nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk() if the blank page check
is done in hw?

Thanks,
Miquèl

>                    if (ret < 0) {
>                            mtd->ecc_stats.failed++;
>                    } else {
>                            mtd->ecc_stats.corrected += ret;
> 
>   Already, it is incrementing mtd->ecc_stats.failed
> 
>   Thanks,
>   Abhishek



-- 
Miquel Raynal, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Reply via email to