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

[Scott Wood]

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