On 10.04.2014 11:35, Pekon Gupta wrote:
This patch tries to avoid some local pointer dereferences, by using common local variables in omap_correct_data_bch()
Signed-off-by: Pekon Gupta pekon@ti.com
drivers/mtd/nand/omap_gpmc.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/omap_gpmc.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/omap_gpmc.c index ae541c2..a96f310 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/omap_gpmc.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/omap_gpmc.c @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ static int omap_correct_data_bch(struct mtd_info *mtd, uint8_t *dat, { struct nand_chip *chip = mtd->priv; struct omap_nand_info *info = chip->priv;
- uint32_t eccbytes = chip->ecc.bytes;
- struct nand_ecc_ctrl *ecc = &chip->ecc;
Again, nitpicking because of inconsistent indentation.
uint32_t error_count = 0, error_max; uint32_t error_loc[8]; enum bch_level bch_type; @@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ static int omap_correct_data_bch(struct mtd_info *mtd, uint8_t *dat, uint32_t byte_pos, bit_pos;
/* check calculated ecc */
- for (i = 0; i < chip->ecc.bytes && !ecc_flag; i++) {
- for (i = 0; i < ecc->bytes && !ecc_flag; i++) { if (calc_ecc[i] != 0x00) ecc_flag = 1; }
@@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ static int omap_correct_data_bch(struct mtd_info *mtd, uint8_t *dat,
/* check for whether its a erased-page */ ecc_flag = 0;
- for (i = 0; i < chip->ecc.bytes && !ecc_flag; i++) {
- for (i = 0; i < ecc->bytes && !ecc_flag; i++) { if (read_ecc[i] != 0xff) ecc_flag = 1; }
@@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ static int omap_correct_data_bch(struct mtd_info *mtd, uint8_t *dat, switch (info->ecc_scheme) { case OMAP_ECC_BCH8_CODE_HW: bch_type = BCH_8_BIT;
omap_reverse_list(calc_ecc, eccbytes - 1);
omap_reverse_list(calc_ecc, ecc->bytes - 1);@@ -372,14 +372,14 @@ static int omap_correct_data_bch(struct mtd_info *mtd, uint8_t *dat, elm_config(bch_type); if (elm_check_error(calc_ecc, bch_type, &error_count, error_loc)) { printf("nand: error: uncorrectable ECC errors\n");
return -EINVAL;
return -EBADMSG;
This change is not mentioned in the commit log. Is it intentional? Or should it be moved to a separate patch?
Thanks, Stefan