Hi Miquel,
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +//
> > +// Copyright (C) 2019 Macronix International Co., Ltd.
> > +//
> > +// Authors:
> > +// Mason Yang <masonccy...@mxic.com.tw>
> > +// zhengxunli <zhengxu...@mxic.com.tw>
>
> This is not a valid name.
>
> Also if he appears here I suppose he should be credited in the
> module_authors() macro too.
I think Li should maintain this NAND driver later,
anyway, I may remove him.
>
> > +//
>
> As a personal taste, I prefer when the header uses /* */ and only the
> SPDX tag uses //.
okay, only SPDX tag use //
>
> > +
> > +#include <linux/mfd/mxic-mx25f0a.h>
> > +#include <linux/mtd/rawnand.h>
> > +#include <linux/mtd/nand_ecc.h>
> > +
> > +#include "internals.h"
> > +
> > +struct mxic_nand_ctlr {
> > + struct mx25f0a_mfd *mfd;
> > + struct nand_controller base;
> > + struct nand_chip nand;
>
> Even if this controller only supports one CS (and then, one chip),
> please have a clear separation between the NAND controller and the NAND
> chip by having one structure for the NAND chips and one structure for
> the NAND controller.
okay, will patch it.
>
> > +};
> > +
> > +static void mxic_host_init(struct mxic_nand_ctlr *mxic)
>
> Please choose a constant prefix for all functions, right now there is:
> mxic_
> mxic_nand_
> mx25f0a_nand_
>
> I think mxic_nand_ or mx25f0a_nand_ is wise.
okay, will use mxic_nand_ as prefix.
>
> > +{
> > + writel(DATA_STROB_EDO_EN, mxic->mfd->regs + DATA_STROB);
> > + writel(INT_STS_ALL, mxic->mfd->regs + INT_STS_EN);
> > + writel(0x0, mxic->mfd->regs + ONFI_DIN_CNT(0));
> > + writel(HC_CFG_NIO(8) | HC_CFG_SLV_ACT(0) | HC_CFG_IDLE_SIO_LVL(1)
|
> > + HC_CFG_TYPE(1, HC_CFG_TYPE_RAW_NAND) | HC_CFG_MAN_CS_EN,
> > + mxic->mfd->regs + HC_CFG);
> > + writel(0x0, mxic->mfd->regs + HC_EN);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mxic_nand_wait_ready(struct nand_chip *chip)
> > +{
> > + struct mxic_nand_ctlr *mxic = nand_get_controller_data(chip);
> > + u32 sts;
> > +
> > + return readl_poll_timeout(mxic->mfd->regs + INT_STS, sts,
> > + sts & INT_RDY_PIN, 0, USEC_PER_SEC);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void mxic_nand_select_chip(struct nand_chip *chip, int chipnr)
>
> _select_target() is preferred now
>
> > +{
> > + struct mxic_nand_ctlr *mxic = nand_get_controller_data(chip);
> > +
> > + switch (chipnr) {
> > + case 0:
> > + case 1:
> > + writel(HC_EN_BIT, mxic->mfd->regs + HC_EN);
> > + writel(HC_CFG_MAN_CS_ASSERT | readl(mxic->mfd->regs + HC_CFG),
> > + mxic->mfd->regs + HC_CFG);
>
> In both case I would prefer a:
>
> reg = readl(...);
> reg &= ~xxx;
> reg |= yyy;
> writel(reg, ...);
>
> Much easier to read.
>
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case -1:
> > + writel(~HC_CFG_MAN_CS_ASSERT & readl(mxic->mfd->regs + HC_CFG),
> > + mxic->mfd->regs + HC_CFG);
> > + writel(0, mxic->mfd->regs + HC_EN);
> > + break;
> > +
> > + default:
>
> Error?
>
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mxic_nand_data_xfer(struct mxic_nand_ctlr *mxic, const
void *txbuf,
> > + void *rxbuf, unsigned int len)
> > +{
>
> There is not so much code shared, why not separating this function for
> rx and tx cases?
>
> > + unsigned int pos = 0;
> > +
> > + while (pos < len) {
> > + unsigned int nbytes = len - pos;
> > + u32 data = 0xffffffff;
> > + u32 sts;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (nbytes > 4)
> > + nbytes = 4;
> > +
> > + if (txbuf)
> > + memcpy(&data, txbuf + pos, nbytes);
> > +
> > + ret = readl_poll_timeout(mxic->mfd->regs + INT_STS, sts,
> > + sts & INT_TX_EMPTY, 0, USEC_PER_SEC);
>
> Using USEC_PER_SEC for a delay is weird
>
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + writel(data, mxic->mfd->regs + TXD(nbytes % 4));
> > +
> > + if (rxbuf) {
> > + ret = readl_poll_timeout(mxic->mfd->regs + INT_STS, sts,
> > + sts & INT_TX_EMPTY, 0,
> > + USEC_PER_SEC);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + ret = readl_poll_timeout(mxic->mfd->regs + INT_STS, sts,
> > + sts & INT_RX_NOT_EMPTY, 0,
> > + USEC_PER_SEC);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + data = readl(mxic->mfd->regs + RXD);
> > + data >>= (8 * (4 - nbytes));
>
> What is this? Are you trying to handle some endianness issue?
yes,
>
> > + memcpy(rxbuf + pos, &data, nbytes);
> > + WARN_ON(readl(mxic->mfd->regs + INT_STS) &
> > + INT_RX_NOT_EMPTY);
> > + } else {
> > + readl(mxic->mfd->regs + RXD);
> > + }
> > + WARN_ON(readl(mxic->mfd->regs + INT_STS) & INT_RX_NOT_EMPTY);
> > +
> > + pos += nbytes;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mxic_nand_exec_op(struct nand_chip *chip,
> > + const struct nand_operation *op, bool check_only)
> > +{
> > + struct mxic_nand_ctlr *mxic = nand_get_controller_data(chip);
> > + const struct nand_op_instr *instr = NULL;
> > + int i, len = 0, ret = 0;
> > + unsigned int op_id;
> > + unsigned char cmdcnt = 0, addr_cnt = 0, cmd_addr[8] = {0};
> > +
> > + for (op_id = 0; op_id < op->ninstrs; op_id++) {
> > + instr = &op->instrs[op_id];
> > +
> > + switch (instr->type) {
> > + case NAND_OP_CMD_INSTR:
> > + cmd_addr[len++] = instr->ctx.cmd.opcode;
> > + cmdcnt++;
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case NAND_OP_ADDR_INSTR:
> > + for (i = 0; i < instr->ctx.addr.naddrs; i++)
> > + cmd_addr[len++] = instr->ctx.addr.addrs[i];
> > + addr_cnt = i;
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case NAND_OP_DATA_IN_INSTR:
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case NAND_OP_DATA_OUT_INSTR:
> > + writel(instr->ctx.data.len,
> > + mxic->mfd->regs + ONFI_DIN_CNT(0));
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case NAND_OP_WAITRDY_INSTR:
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (op_id == 5 && instr->type == NAND_OP_WAITRDY_INSTR) {
> > + /*
> > + * In case cmd-addr-data-cmd-wait in a sequence,
> > + * separate the 2'nd command, i.e,. nand_prog_page_op()
> > + */
>
> I think this is the kind of limitation that could be described very
> easily with a nand_op_parser structure and used by
> nand_op_parser_exec_op() (see marvell_nand.c).
okay, thanks for your information.
Will check and patch it.
>
> > + writel(OP_CMD_BUSW(OP_BUSW_8) | OP_ADDR_BUSW(OP_BUSW_8) |
> > + OP_DATA_BUSW(OP_BUSW_8) | OP_DUMMY_CYC(0x3F) |
> > + OP_ADDR_BYTES(addr_cnt) |
> > + OP_CMD_BYTES(1), mxic->mfd->regs + SS_CTRL(0));
> > + writel(0, mxic->mfd->regs + HC_EN);
> > + writel(HC_EN_BIT, mxic->mfd->regs + HC_EN);
> > +
> > + mxic_nand_data_xfer(mxic, cmd_addr, NULL, len - 1);
> > +
> > + mxic_nand_data_xfer(mxic, instr->ctx.data.buf.out, NULL,
> > + instr->ctx.data.len);
> > +
> > + writel(0, mxic->mfd->regs + HC_EN);
> > + writel(HC_EN_BIT, mxic->mfd->regs + HC_EN);
> > + mxic_nand_data_xfer(mxic, &cmd_addr[--len], NULL, 1);
> > + ret = mxic_nand_wait_ready(chip);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto err_out;
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (len) {
> > + writel(OP_CMD_BUSW(OP_BUSW_8) | OP_ADDR_BUSW(OP_BUSW_8) |
> > + OP_DATA_BUSW(OP_BUSW_8) | OP_DUMMY_CYC(0x3F) |
> > + OP_ADDR_BYTES(addr_cnt) |
> > + OP_CMD_BYTES(cmdcnt > 0 ? cmdcnt : 0),
> > + mxic->mfd->regs + SS_CTRL(0));
> > + writel(0, mxic->mfd->regs + HC_EN);
> > + writel(HC_EN_BIT, mxic->mfd->regs + HC_EN);
> > +
> > + mxic_nand_data_xfer(mxic, cmd_addr, NULL, len);
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (op_id = 0; op_id < op->ninstrs; op_id++) {
> > + instr = &op->instrs[op_id];
> > +
> > + switch (instr->type) {
> > + case NAND_OP_CMD_INSTR:
> > + case NAND_OP_ADDR_INSTR:
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case NAND_OP_DATA_IN_INSTR:
> > + writel(0x0, mxic->mfd->regs + ONFI_DIN_CNT(0));
> > + writel(readl(mxic->mfd->regs + SS_CTRL(0)) | OP_READ,
> > + mxic->mfd->regs + SS_CTRL(0));
> > + mxic_nand_data_xfer(mxic, NULL, instr->ctx.data.buf.in,
> > + instr->ctx.data.len);
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case NAND_OP_DATA_OUT_INSTR:
> > + mxic_nand_data_xfer(mxic, instr->ctx.data.buf.out, NULL,
> > + instr->ctx.data.len);
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case NAND_OP_WAITRDY_INSTR:
> > + ret = mxic_nand_wait_ready(chip);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto err_out;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > +err_out:
> > + return ret;
>
> Ditto, please return directly if there is nothing in the error path.
okay
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct nand_controller_ops mxic_nand_controller_ops = {
> > + .exec_op = mxic_nand_exec_op,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int mx25f0a_nand_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + struct mtd_info *mtd;
> > + struct mx25f0a_mfd *mfd = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> > + struct mxic_nand_ctlr *mxic;
> > + struct nand_chip *nand_chip;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + mxic = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct mxic_nand_ctlr),
> > + GFP_KERNEL);
>
> mxic for a NAND controller structure is probably not a name meaningful
> enough.
How about *fmc or *mxic_fmc ?
>
> > + if (!mxic)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + nand_chip = &mxic->nand;
> > + mtd = nand_to_mtd(nand_chip);
> > + mtd->dev.parent = pdev->dev.parent;
> > + nand_chip->ecc.priv = NULL;
> > + nand_set_flash_node(nand_chip, pdev->dev.parent->of_node);
> > + nand_chip->priv = mxic;
> > +
> > + mxic->mfd = mfd;
> > +
> > + nand_chip->legacy.select_chip = mxic_nand_select_chip;
>
> Please don't implement legacy interfaces. You can check in
> marvell_nand.c how this is handled now:
>
> b25251414f6e mtd: rawnand: marvell: Stop implementing ->select_chip()
got it, will check & patch.
>
> > + mxic->base.ops = &mxic_nand_controller_ops;
> > + nand_controller_init(&mxic->base);
> > + nand_chip->controller = &mxic->base;
> > +
> > + mxic_host_init(mxic);
> > +
> > + err = nand_scan(nand_chip, 1);
> > + if (err)
> > + goto fail;
>
> You can return directly as there is nothing to clean in the error path.
>
> > +
> > + err = mtd_device_register(mtd, NULL, 0);
> > + if (err)
> > + goto fail;
>
> Ditto
>
> > +
> > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, mxic);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +fail:
> > + return err;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mx25f0a_nand_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + struct mxic_nand_ctlr *mxic = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > +
> > + nand_release(&mxic->nand);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct platform_driver mx25f0a_nand_driver = {
> > + .probe = mx25f0a_nand_probe,
>
> Please don't align '=' on tabs.
okay, will fix and also remove "mx25f0a" char.
patch to:
mxic_nand_driver & mxic_nand_probe.
thanks for your review.
best regards,
Mason
--
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be
reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail
(and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive
this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as
well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be
informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is
prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws.
Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================
============================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or
personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be reminded that
duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail (and/or its
attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in
error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as well as its
attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be informed that
collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is prohibited unless
expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. Thank you for your
attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================
