On 04.03.19 11:58, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Frieder,
>
> Schrempf Frieder <[email protected]> wrote on Mon, 18 Feb
> 2019 10:42:41 +0000:
>
>> From: Frieder Schrempf <[email protected]>
>>
>> The information about where the manufacturer puts the bad block
>> markers inside the bad block and in the OOB data is stored in
>> different places. Let's move this information to the chip struct,
>> as we did it for rawnand.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frieder Schrempf <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c | 5 ++++-
>> drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c | 3 ---
>> include/linux/mtd/onenand.h | 3 +++
>> 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c
>> b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c
>> index 4ca4b194e7d7..f41d76248550 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c
>> @@ -2458,7 +2458,7 @@ static int onenand_default_block_markbad(struct
>> mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs)
>> bbm->bbt[block >> 2] |= 0x01 << ((block & 0x03) << 1);
>>
>> /* We write two bytes, so we don't have to mess with 16-bit access
>> */
>> - ofs += mtd->oobsize + (bbm->badblockpos & ~0x01);
>> + ofs += mtd->oobsize + (this->badblockpos & ~0x01);
>> /* FIXME : What to do when marking SLC block in partition
>> * with MLC erasesize? For now, it is not advisable to
>> * create partitions containing both SLC and MLC regions.
>> @@ -3967,6 +3967,9 @@ int onenand_scan(struct mtd_info *mtd, int maxchips)
>> if (!(this->options & ONENAND_SKIP_INITIAL_UNLOCKING))
>> this->unlock_all(mtd);
>>
>> + /* Set the bad block marker position */
>> + this->badblockpos = ONENAND_BADBLOCK_POS;
>> +
>> ret = this->scan_bbt(mtd);
>> if ((!FLEXONENAND(this)) || ret)
>> return ret;
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c
>> b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c
>> index dde20487937d..57c31c81be18 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c
>> @@ -190,9 +190,6 @@ static int onenand_scan_bbt(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct
>> nand_bbt_descr *bd)
>> if (!bbm->bbt)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> - /* Set the bad block position */
>> - bbm->badblockpos = ONENAND_BADBLOCK_POS;
>> -
>> /* Set erase shift */
>> bbm->bbt_erase_shift = this->erase_shift;
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h b/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h
>> index 0aaa98b219a4..e03aea7f7e61 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h
>> @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ struct onenand_chip {
>> unsigned int technology;
>> unsigned int density_mask;
>> unsigned int options;
>> + int badblockpos;
>
> Any reason not to unsign this field?
It was signed so far, but you're right that it makes more sense to
unsign it.
>
>>
>> unsigned int erase_shift;
>> unsigned int page_shift;
>> @@ -188,6 +189,8 @@ struct onenand_chip {
>> /* Check byte access in OneNAND */
>> #define ONENAND_CHECK_BYTE_ACCESS(addr) (addr & 0x1)
>>
>> +#define ONENAND_BADBLOCK_POS 0
>> +
>> /*
>> * Options bits
>> */
>
> Thanks,
> Miquèl
>
