[U-Boot] [PATCH 07/10] mtd: nand: s3c: Add missing correction and select_chip functions

[Scott Wood]

On Fri, 2016-02-19 at 18:53 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 02/13/2016 12:18 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 02:41 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 11:45:08 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 18:42 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > +	/* sometimes people do not think about using the ECC, so
> > > > > check
> > > > > +	 * to see if we have an 0xff,0xff,0xff read ECC and then
> > > > > ignore
> > > > > +	 * the error, on the assumption that this is an un-eccd
> > > > > page.
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > 
> > > > Eww.  I suppose I won't argue too loudly if Linux is doing the same
> > > > thing, but what if it's a corrupted blank page, or the ECC just
> > > > happened
> > > > to turn out as all 0xff?  It seems like there should at least be a
> > > > warning the first time this happens, and ideally it should be
> > > > configurable.
> > > > 
> > > > > +	if (read_ecc[0] == 0xff && read_ecc[1] == 0xff &&
> > > > > read_ecc[2]
> > > > > == 0xff
> > > > > +	    /*&& info->platform->ignore_unset_ecc*/)
> > > > > 
> > > > >  		return 0;
> > > > 
> > > > So it looks like it is configurable in Linux, but you've commented it
> > > > out here.
> > > > 
> > > > > @@ -221,6 +298,8 @@ int board_nand_init(struct nand_chip *nand)
> > > > > 
> > > > >  	nand->dev_ready = s3c24x0_dev_ready;
> > > > > 
> > > > > +	nand->chip_delay = 50;
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure how this is related to the changes described in the
> > > > changelog...
> > > 
> > > Can you collect the MTD patches which are applicable at least and drop
> > > this
> > > one?
> > 
> > 4/10 is already merged.  Which patches are you referring to that don't
> > have
> > comments, still apply cleanly, and are patching a NAND file?
> 
> Most of this patchset.

Give me one example.  I couldn't find any last time I looked.

-Scott