On 8/23/23 09:54, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 8:28 AM Eugen Hristev eugen.hristev@collabora.com 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 ada@thorsis.com 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 MiBNote: 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 ada@thorsis.com
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
elsenand->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 michael@amarulasolutions.com __________________________________
Amarula Solutions BV Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL T. +31 (0)85 111 9172 info@amarulasolutions.com www.amarulasolutions.com