On Mon,  7 May 2018 09:34:15 -0700
Jane Wan <[email protected]> wrote:

> Per ONFI specification (Rev. 4.0), if all parameter pages have invalid
> CRC values, the bit-wise majority may be used to recover the contents of
> the parameter pages from the parameter page copies present.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jane Wan <[email protected]>

I never received patch 1 of this series. When you fix something in a
commit, please resend the whole patchset, even if other patches haven't
changed.

> ---
>  drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c |   41 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c 
> b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> index 72f3a89..48f2dec 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> @@ -5086,15 +5086,18 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_ext_param_page(struct 
> nand_chip *chip,
>       return ret;
>  }
>  
> +#define GET_BIT(bit, val)   (((val) >> (bit)) & 0x01)
> +
>  /*
>   * Check if the NAND chip is ONFI compliant, returns 1 if it is, 0 otherwise.
>   */
>  static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct nand_chip *chip)
>  {
>       struct mtd_info *mtd = nand_to_mtd(chip);
> -     struct nand_onfi_params *p;
> +     struct nand_onfi_params *p = NULL;
>       char id[4];
> -     int i, ret, val;
> +     int i, ret, val, pagesize;
> +     u8 *buf = NULL;
>  
>       /* Try ONFI for unknown chip or LP */
>       ret = nand_readid_op(chip, 0x20, id, sizeof(id));
> @@ -5102,8 +5105,9 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct nand_chip 
> *chip)
>               return 0;
>  
>       /* ONFI chip: allocate a buffer to hold its parameter page */
> -     p = kzalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_KERNEL);
> -     if (!p)
> +     pagesize = sizeof(*p);
> +     buf = kzalloc((pagesize * 3), GFP_KERNEL);

Not sure why you have to add a new buf variable here, and pagesize is
not needed either, just use sizeof(*p) directly.

> +     if (!buf)
>               return -ENOMEM;
>  
>       ret = nand_read_param_page_op(chip, 0, NULL, 0);
> @@ -5113,7 +5117,8 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct nand_chip 
> *chip)
>       }
>  
>       for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
> -             ret = nand_read_data_op(chip, p, sizeof(*p), true);
> +             p = (struct nand_onfi_params *)&buf[i*pagesize];
> +             ret = nand_read_data_op(chip, p, pagesize, true);
>               if (ret) {
>                       ret = 0;
>                       goto free_onfi_param_page;
> @@ -5126,8 +5131,27 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct nand_chip 
> *chip)
>       }
>  
>       if (i == 3) {
> -             pr_err("Could not find valid ONFI parameter page; aborting\n");
> -             goto free_onfi_param_page;
> +             int j, k, l;
> +             u8 v, m;
> +
> +             pr_err("Could not find valid ONFI parameter page\n");
> +             pr_info("Recover ONFI params with bit-wise majority\n");
> +             for (j = 0; j < pagesize; j++) {
> +                     v = 0;
> +                     for (k = 0; k < 8; k++) {
> +                             m = 0;
> +                             for (l = 0; l < 3; l++)
> +                                     m += GET_BIT(k, buf[l*pagesize + j]);
> +                             if (m > 1)
> +                                     v |= BIT(k);
> +                     }
> +                     ((u8 *)p)[j] = v;
> +             }

Can you move the bit-wise majority code in a separate function?

> +             if (onfi_crc16(ONFI_CRC_BASE, (uint8_t *)p, 254) !=
> +                             le16_to_cpu(p->crc)) {
> +                     pr_err("ONFI parameter recovery failed, aborting\n");
> +                     goto free_onfi_param_page;
> +             }
>       }
>  
>       /* Check version */
> @@ -5220,7 +5244,8 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct nand_chip 
> *chip)
>              sizeof(p->vendor));
>  
>  free_onfi_param_page:
> -     kfree(p);
> +     if (buf != NULL)
> +             kfree(buf);

kfree() already handles the buf == NULL case, no need to check it here.

>       return ret;
>  }
>  

Reply via email to