Hi Frieder, Schrempf Frieder <[email protected]> wrote on Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:47:52 +0000:
> 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. With this addressed please add my: Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> Thanks, Miquèl
