Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] JFFS2 command support on OneNAND

On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 11:22:56AM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote:

+static int part_validate_onenand(struct mtdids *id, struct part_info *part) +{ +#if defined(CONFIG_CMD_ONENAND)

• /* info for OneNAND chips */
• struct mtd_info *mtd;
• mtd = &onenand_mtd;
• if ((unsigned long)(part->offset) % mtd->erasesize) {

• printf("%s%d: partition (%s) start offset"
  

• 	"alignment incorrect\n",
  

• 		MTD_DEV_TYPE(id->type), id->num, part->name);
  

• return 1;
  

• }
• if (part->size % mtd->erasesize) {

• printf("%s%d: partition (%s) size alignment incorrect\n",
  

• 		MTD_DEV_TYPE(id->type), id->num, part->name);
  

• return 1;
  

• }
• return 0;

+#else

• return 1;

+#endif +}

This looks like a duplicate of part_validate_nand (note that nand_info_t is just an obfuscatory alias of struct mtd_info).

+static int read_onenand_cached(u32 off, u32 size, u_char *buf) +{

• u32 bytes_read = 0;
• size_t retlen;
• int cpy_bytes;
• while (bytes_read < size) {

• if ((off + bytes_read < onenand_cache_off) ||
  

•     (off + bytes_read >= onenand_cache_off + ONENAND_CACHE_SIZE)) {
  

• 	onenand_cache_off = (off + bytes_read) & ONENAND_PAGE_MASK;
  

• 	if (!onenand_cache) {
  

• 		/* This memory never gets freed but 'cause
  

• 		   it's a bootloader, nobody cares */
  

• 		onenand_cache = malloc(ONENAND_CACHE_SIZE);
  

• 		if (!onenand_cache) {
  

• 			printf("read_onenand_cached: can't alloc cache size %d bytes\n",
  

• 			       ONENAND_CACHE_SIZE);
  

• 			return -1;
  

• 		}
  

• 	}
  

• 	retlen = ONENAND_CACHE_SIZE;
  

• 	if (onenand_read(&onenand_mtd, onenand_cache_off, retlen,
  

• 				&retlen, onenand_cache) != 0 ||
  

• 			retlen != ONENAND_CACHE_SIZE) {
  

• 		printf("read_onenand_cached: error reading nand off %#x size %d bytes\n",
  

• 			onenand_cache_off, ONENAND_CACHE_SIZE);
  

• 		return -1;
  

• 	}
  

• }
  

• cpy_bytes = onenand_cache_off + ONENAND_CACHE_SIZE - (off + bytes_read);
  

• if (cpy_bytes > size - bytes_read)
  

• 	cpy_bytes = size - bytes_read;
  

• memcpy(buf + bytes_read,
  

•        onenand_cache + off + bytes_read - onenand_cache_off,
  

•        cpy_bytes);
  

• bytes_read += cpy_bytes;
  

• }
• return bytes_read;

+}

I really would rather not duplicate all of this, which looks extremely similar to regular NAND. Is there reason why we don't use the mtd_info function pointer interface?

-Scott