On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 01:35:52AM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote:

On 2015-08-01 01:09, Brian Norris wrote:

quoted

quoted

+static int vf610_nfc_read_page(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip,
+				uint8_t *buf, int oob_required, int page)
+{
+	int eccsize = chip->ecc.size;
+	int stat;
+
+	vf610_nfc_read_buf(mtd, buf, eccsize);
+
+	if (oob_required)
+		vf610_nfc_read_buf(mtd, chip->oob_poi, mtd->oobsize);

To fix the bitflips issue above, you'll just want to unconditionally
read the OOB (it's fine to ignore 'oob_required') and...

quoted

+
+	stat = vf610_nfc_correct_data(mtd, buf);

...pass in chip->oob_poi as a third argument.

Hm, this probably will have an effect on performance, since we usually
omit the OOB if not requested.

You could test :) I don't really like performance claims without tests.
(I say this because I added the oob_required flag myself, but just for
functional purposes, not performance. Many drivers got by just fine by
always copying the OOB data.)

I could fetch the OOB from the NAND
controllers SRAM only if necessary (if HW ECC status is not ok...). Does
this sound reasonable?

That does.

Brian