Hi Priit,

On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 08:43:05 +0200
Priit Laes [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 23:25 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:

quoted

ecclayout->oobavail is just redundant with the mtd->oobavail field.
Moreover, it prevents static const definition of ecc layouts since
the
NAND framework is calculating this value based on the ecclayout-

quoted

oobfree

field.

Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <redacted>
---
?drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c???????????????????|??5 ++-
?drivers/mtd/mtdswap.c?????????????????????????| 16 ++++-----
?drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c??????????|??3 --
?drivers/mtd/nand/docg4.c??????????????????????|??1 -
?drivers/mtd/nand/hisi504_nand.c???????????????|??1 -
?drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c??????????????????| 12 +++----
?drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c????????????| 16 ++++-----
?drivers/mtd/tests/oobtest.c???????????????????| 49 +++++++++++++--
------------
?drivers/staging/mt29f_spinand/mt29f_spinand.c |??1 -
?fs/jffs2/wbuf.c???????????????????????????????|??6 ++--
?include/linux/mtd/mtd.h???????????????????????|??1 -
?11 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)

[..]

quoted

?

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c

b/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
index 35d78f7..a906ec2 100644

--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c

@@ -845,9 +845,6 @@ static struct nand_ecclayout *brcmnand_create_layout(int ecc_level,

?			break;
?	}
?out:
-	/* Sum available OOB */
-	for (i = 0; i < MTD_MAX_OOBFREE_ENTRIES_LARGE; i++)
-		layout->oobavail += layout->oobfree[i].length;
?	return layout;
?}

You can get rid of the 'out' label and replace the single goto in this
function with 'return layout'.

Yep, I'll fix that.

[...]

quoted

?

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c

b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
index 0748a13..1107f5c1 100644

--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c

@@ -2037,7 +2037,7 @@ static int nand_do_read_oob(struct mtd_info

*mtd, loff_t from,
?	stats = mtd->ecc_stats;
?
?	if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
-		len = chip->ecc.layout->oobavail;
+		len = mtd->oobavail;
?	else
?		len = mtd->oobsize;
?

@@ -2728,7 +2728,7 @@ static int nand_do_write_oob(struct mtd_info

*mtd, loff_t to,
?			?__func__, (unsigned int)to, (int)ops-

quoted

ooblen);

?
?	if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
-		len = chip->ecc.layout->oobavail;
+		len = mtd->oobavail;
?	else
?		len = mtd->oobsize;
?

[...]

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c

b/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c
index 43b3392..d70bbfd 100644

--- a/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c

@@ -1125,7 +1125,7 @@ static int onenand_mlc_read_ops_nolock(struct

mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from,
?			(int)len);
?
?	if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
-		oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail;
+		oobsize = mtd->oobavail;
?	else
?		oobsize = mtd->oobsize;
?

@@ -1230,7 +1230,7 @@ static int onenand_read_ops_nolock(struct

mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from,
?			(int)len);
?
?	if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
-		oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail;
+		oobsize = mtd->oobavail;
?	else
?		oobsize = mtd->oobsize;
?

@@ -1365,7 +1365,7 @@ static int onenand_read_oob_nolock(struct

mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from,
?	ops->oobretlen = 0;
?
?	if (mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
-		oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail;
+		oobsize = mtd->oobavail;
?	else
?		oobsize = mtd->oobsize;
?

@@ -1887,7 +1887,7 @@ static int onenand_write_ops_nolock(struct

mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to,
?		return 0;
?
?	if (ops->mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
-		oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail;
+		oobsize = mtd->oobavail;
?	else
?		oobsize = mtd->oobsize;
?

@@ -2063,7 +2063,7 @@ static int onenand_write_oob_nolock(struct

mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to,
?	ops->oobretlen = 0;
?
?	if (mode == MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB)
-		oobsize = this->ecclayout->oobavail;
+		oobsize = mtd->oobavail;
?	else
?		oobsize = mtd->oobsize;

This identical construction seems to occur multiple times in multiple
files. Would it make sense to create a macro for it?

Right, I'll make another patch move this logic into an inline function.

Thanks for the review.

Boris


-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com