[U-Boot] [PATCH] mxs_nand: Fix ECC strength for NAND flash with OOB size of 224
On a board with an i.mx28 and a Micron MT29F4G08ABAEAH4, Linux says:
NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0x2c, Chip ID: 0xdc (Micron MT29F4G08ABAEAH4), 512MiB, page size: 4096, OOB size: 224) the ECC strength is 16.
root@(none):/sys/devices/virtual/mtd/mtd0# for i in ecc_strength oobsize subpagesize; do echo $i = `cat $i`; done ecc_strength = 16 oobsize = 224 subpagesize = 4096
The ECC strength was not properly discovered by U-Boot causing the data written by Linux to return an -74 (EBADMSG) when read from U-Boot. This patch fixes mxs_nand_get_ecc_strength() to function in case of a NAND flash with page_data_size = 4096 and page_oob_size= 224.
Signed-off-by: Elie De Brauwer eliedebrauwer@gmail.com --- drivers/mtd/nand/mxs_nand.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/mxs_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/mxs_nand.c index 378f8c5..036c113 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/mxs_nand.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/mxs_nand.c @@ -155,6 +155,9 @@ static inline uint32_t mxs_nand_get_ecc_strength(uint32_t page_data_size,
if (page_oob_size == 218) return 16; + + if (page_oob_size == 224) + return 16; }
return 0;
On 24/08/2013 16:51, Elie De Brauwer wrote:
On a board with an i.mx28 and a Micron MT29F4G08ABAEAH4, Linux says:
NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0x2c, Chip ID: 0xdc (Micron MT29F4G08ABAEAH4), 512MiB, page size: 4096, OOB size: 224) the ECC strength is 16.
root@(none):/sys/devices/virtual/mtd/mtd0# for i in ecc_strength oobsize subpagesize; do echo $i = `cat $i`; done ecc_strength = 16 oobsize = 224 subpagesize = 4096
The ECC strength was not properly discovered by U-Boot causing the data written by Linux to return an -74 (EBADMSG) when read from U-Boot. This patch fixes mxs_nand_get_ecc_strength() to function in case of a NAND flash with page_data_size = 4096 and page_oob_size= 224.
Signed-off-by: Elie De Brauwer eliedebrauwer@gmail.com
Scott, I found this is assigned to me in patchwork. Is it ok if I apply it ?
Best regards, Stefano
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 19:02 +0200, Stefano Babic wrote:
On 24/08/2013 16:51, Elie De Brauwer wrote:
On a board with an i.mx28 and a Micron MT29F4G08ABAEAH4, Linux says:
NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0x2c, Chip ID: 0xdc (Micron MT29F4G08ABAEAH4), 512MiB, page size: 4096, OOB size: 224) the ECC strength is 16.
root@(none):/sys/devices/virtual/mtd/mtd0# for i in ecc_strength oobsize subpagesize; do echo $i = `cat $i`; done ecc_strength = 16 oobsize = 224 subpagesize = 4096
The ECC strength was not properly discovered by U-Boot causing the data written by Linux to return an -74 (EBADMSG) when read from U-Boot. This patch fixes mxs_nand_get_ecc_strength() to function in case of a NAND flash with page_data_size = 4096 and page_oob_size= 224.
Signed-off-by: Elie De Brauwer eliedebrauwer@gmail.com
Scott, I found this is assigned to me in patchwork. Is it ok if I apply it ?
Best regards, Stefano
Sure.
Acked-by: Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com
I'm curious who's been doing these patchwork assignments and what they're basing it on.
-Scott
Hi Scott,
On 10/09/2013 22:11, Scott Wood wrote:
Sure.
Acked-by: Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com
I'm curious who's been doing these patchwork assignments and what they're basing it on.
I think that everyone of us custodians has write rights to assign patches. Personally, I check the list and I assign myself the i.MXes. Surely there are a lot of unassigned patches, and someone tries to make order - better there is who takes care of a patch as to let the patch oblivious. However, this is an error-prone approach, and it should be nice if there could be an automatic way to assign patches, maybe using the subject.
Regards, Stefano
On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 09:24 +0200, Stefano Babic wrote:
Hi Scott,
On 10/09/2013 22:11, Scott Wood wrote:
Sure.
Acked-by: Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com
I'm curious who's been doing these patchwork assignments and what they're basing it on.
I think that everyone of us custodians has write rights to assign patches. Personally, I check the list and I assign myself the i.MXes. Surely there are a lot of unassigned patches, and someone tries to make order - better there is who takes care of a patch as to let the patch oblivious.
Sure... Probably what prompted the comment more than this was when other people assign patches to me that aren't in the NAND code (e.g. UBI patches, or patches in arch/board code). Then I need to choose between just unassigning them, or figuring out who to assign them to, and I can't even see who assigned them to me to ask them about it. A log of patchwork updates would be nice.
However, this is an error-prone approach, and it should be nice if there could be an automatic way to assign patches, maybe using the subject.
It'd be nice if the files touched could be used.
-Scott
participants (3)
-
Elie De Brauwer -
Scott Wood -
Stefano Babic