On 8/23/23 09:54, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 8:28 AM Eugen Hristev
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
On 8/8/23 18:03, Alexander Dahl wrote:
Hello Michael,
Am Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 03:49:45PM +0200 schrieb Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi:
Hi
On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 3:03 PM Alexander Dahl <[email protected]> wrote:
Adapt behaviour to Linux kernel driver.
The return value of gpio_request_by_name_nodev() was not checked before,
and thus in case 'rb-gpios' was missing in DT, rb.type was set to
ATMEL_NAND_GPIO_RB nevertheless, leading to output like this for
example (on sam9x60-curiosity with the line removed from dts):
NAND: Could not find valid ONFI parameter page; aborting
device found, Manufacturer ID: 0xc2, Chip ID: 0xdc
Macronix NAND 512MiB 3,3V 8-bit
512 MiB, SLC, erase size: 256 KiB, page size: 4096, OOB size: 64
atmel-nand-controller nand-controller: NAND scan failed: -22
Failed to probe nand driver (err = -22)
Failed to initialize NAND controller. (error -22)
0 MiB
Note: not having that gpio assigned in dts is fine, the driver does not
override nand_chip->dev_ready() then and a generic solution is used.
Fixes: 6a8dfd57220d ("nand: atmel: Add DM based NAND driver")
Signed-off-by: Alexander Dahl <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/atmel/nand-controller.c | 11 +++++++----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/atmel/nand-controller.c
b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/atmel/nand-controller.c
index 2b29c8def6..8e745a5111 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/atmel/nand-controller.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/atmel/nand-controller.c
@@ -1600,10 +1600,13 @@ static struct atmel_nand *atmel_nand_create(struct
atmel_nand_controller *nc,
nand->cs[i].rb.type = ATMEL_NAND_NATIVE_RB;
nand->cs[i].rb.id = val;
} else {
- gpio_request_by_name_nodev(np, "rb-gpios", 0,
- &nand->cs[i].rb.gpio,
- GPIOD_IS_IN);
- nand->cs[i].rb.type = ATMEL_NAND_GPIO_RB;
+ ret = gpio_request_by_name_nodev(np, "rb-gpios", 0,
+ &nand->cs[i].rb.gpio,
+ GPIOD_IS_IN);
+ if (ret)
+ dev_err(nc->dev, "Failed to get R/B gpio (err =
%d)\n", ret);
Should not then an error here
Different log level or no message at all?
Note: Linux prints the same message with error level in that case.
Greets
Alex
Since the rb-gpios is optional, we can continue probing without it.
Throwing an error message is optional and pure informative. So I am fine
with it
Yes ok, but I'm not sure linux give an error if the gpio is get as
optional and condition
is IS_ERR. Am I right?
if (IS_ERR(gpio) && PTR_ERR(gpio) != -ENOENT) {
dev_err(nc->dev,
"Failed to get R/B gpio (err = %ld)\n",
PTR_ERR(gpio));
return ERR_CAST(gpio);
}
So Linux throws the message if IS_ERR . If the property is missing
(ENOENT) it moves on.
Can we replicate the same behavior or this behavior does not suit us in
U-boot ?
Basically I think it should be :
if (ret && ret != -ENOENT)
dev_err(...)
if (!ret)
rb.type = ATMEL_NAND_GPIO_RB;
Is this what you had in mind Michael ?
Eugen
For the rest is fine
Michael
What I wanted to ask is what happens with nand->cs[i].rb.type , is it 0
by default ?
Other than that, I can apply this patch, Michael, do you have any more
comments on it ?
Thanks,
Eugen
Michael
+ else
+ nand->cs[i].rb.type = ATMEL_NAND_GPIO_RB;
}
gpio_request_by_name_nodev(np, "cs-gpios", 0,
--
2.30.2
--
Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi
Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer
M. +39 347 913 2170
[email protected]
__________________________________
Amarula Solutions BV
Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL
T. +31 (0)85 111 9172
[email protected]
www.amarulasolutions.com
