Re: [PATCH v6] mtd: sharpslpart: Add sharpslpart partition parser

[Boris Brezillon]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:19:56 +0200
Andrea Adami <andrea.adami@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >> +/**
> >> + * struct sharpsl_ftl - Sharp FTL Logical Table
> >> + * @logmax:          number of logical blocks
> >> + * @log2phy:         the logical-to-physical table
> >> + *
> >> + * Stripped down from 2.4 sources for read-only purposes.  
> >
> > Not sure this information is really useful, especially since you don't
> > provide a link to the 2.4 sources (or maybe I missed it).  
> 
> Maybe here I can add that this FTL was originally tailored for devices
> 16KiB erasesize matching the size of the PARAM_BLOCK_ above thus using
> two separate blocks for the partition tables. Should I add an
> ASCII-art?

You can add an ASCII-art if you want but that's not mandatory if you
can explain it with words :-).

> Pls see
> http://www.h5.dion.ne.jp/~rimemoon/zaurus/memo_006.htm
> BTW the link was in the cover-letter 0/9, I'll put it here together
> with the changelog.

Please put it in the code (in a comment). The changelog will disappear
as soon as I apply the patch.

> 
> >
> > You'd better describe what this struct is used for here.  
> Seems self-explanatory..2 fields commented. What would you add here?

Just that the struct contains the logical-to-physical translation
table used by the SHARPSL FTL. It's just that your initial comment
didn't bring any useful information. 

> 
> >  
> >> + */
> >> +struct sharpsl_ftl {
> >> +     u_int logmax;
> >> +     u_int *log2phy;  
> >

[...]

> >> +/*
> >> + * The logical block number assigned to a physical block is stored in the OOB
> >> + * of the first page, in 3 16-bit copies with the following layout:
> >> + *
> >> + * 01234567 89abcdef
> >> + * -------- --------
> >> + * ECC BB   xyxyxy
> >> + *
> >> + * When reading we check that the first two copies agree.
> >> + * In case of error, matching is tried using the following pairs.
> >> + * Reserved values 0xffff mean the block is kept for wear leveling.
> >> + *
> >> + * 01234567 89abcdef
> >> + * -------- --------
> >> + * ECC BB   xyxy    oob[8]==oob[10] && oob[9]==oob[11]   -> byte0=8   byte1=9
> >> + * ECC BB     xyxy  oob[10]==oob[12] && oob[11]==oob[13] -> byte0=10  byte1=11
> >> + * ECC BB   xy  xy  oob[12]==oob[8] && oob[13]==oob[9]   -> byte0=12  byte1=13
> >> + *
> >> + */
> >> +static u_int sharpsl_nand_get_logical_num(u_char *oob)
> >> +{
> >> +     u16 us;
> >> +     int good0, good1;
> >> +
> >> +     if (oob[NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_00] == oob[NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_10] &&
> >> +         oob[NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_01] == oob[NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_11]) {
> >> +             good0 = NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_00;
> >> +             good1 = NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_01;
> >> +     } else if (oob[NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_10] == oob[NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_20] &&
> >> +                oob[NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_11] == oob[NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_21]) {
> >> +             good0 = NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_10;
> >> +             good1 = NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_11;
> >> +     } else if (oob[NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_20] == oob[NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_00] &&
> >> +                oob[NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_21] == oob[NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_01]) {
> >> +             good0 = NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_20;
> >> +             good1 = NAND_NOOB_LOGADDR_21;
> >> +     } else {
> >> +             /* wrong oob fingerprint, maybe here by mistake? */
> >> +             return UINT_MAX;
> >> +     }
> >> +
> >> +     us = oob[good0] | oob[good1] << 8;
> >> +
> >> +     /* parity check */
> >> +     if (hweight16(us) & BLOCK_UNMASK_COMPLEMENT)
> >> +             return (UINT_MAX - 1);  
> >
> > Why not making this function return an int and use regular error codes
> > for the parity and wrong fingerprint errors?
> >  
> Originally in case of error it did return the largest values.
> I can return a negative int but then I'd have to check for log_no >0
> 
> Besides, what are the 'regular' error codes you'd use here?
> For the missing FTL we do return -EINVAL later so I'd say this is the
> error for the wrong oob fingerprint.

EINVAL should be fine for all corruption/mismatch.

> 
> About the parity error, it does return UINT_MAX -1 so to allow very
> large log_num. This value is always bigger than log_max so it is
> skipped in the actual code but the read continues.

Well, a parity error is still an error, right?

> Should we change the philosophy of the old 2.4 code and exit in case
> of parity errors?

Hm, you should not exit if the phys -> log information is corrupted, it
just means you can't consider this physical block is containing a valid
logical block, that's all. Pretty much like when there's an oob
fingerprint mismatch.

> 
> >> +
> >> +     /* reserved */
> >> +     if (us == BLOCK_IS_RESERVED)
> >> +             return BLOCK_IS_RESERVED;
> >> +     else  
> >
> > You can drop the 'else' here.  
> Done
> >  
> >> +             return (us & BLOCK_UNMASK) >> 1;  
> >
> > So, this is a 10bit value, right? Why not doing the >> 1 first so that
> > your BLOCK_UNMASK mask really looks like a valid mask (0x3ff, which can
> > also be defined as GENMASK(9, 0)).  
> Right, very nice. Done.
> Can I keep BLOCK_UNMASK COMPLEMENT = 1 ?

Yes.

> 
> >  
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int sharpsl_nand_init_logical(struct mtd_info *mtd, u32 partition_size,  
> >
> > s/sharpsl_nand_init_logical/sharpsl_nand_init_ftl/  
> Oh yes, renamed
> 
> >
> > partition_size is always set to SHARPSL_FTL_PART_SIZE. Please drop this
> > argument.
> >  
> Ok, done
> 
> >> +                                  struct sharpsl_ftl *ftl)
> >> +{
> >> +     u_int block_num, log_num, phymax;
> >> +     loff_t block_adr;
> >> +     u_char *oob;
> >> +     int i, ret;
> >> +
> >> +     oob = kzalloc(mtd->oobsize, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +     if (!oob)
> >> +             return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> +     /* initialize management structure */
> >> +     phymax = (partition_size / mtd->erasesize);  
> >
> > You can use mtd_div_by_eb() here.
> >  
> Done for all occurrences
> 
> >> +
> >> +     /* FTL reserves 5% of the blocks + 1 spare  */
> >> +     ftl->logmax = ((phymax * 95) / 100) - 1;
> >> +
> >> +     ftl->log2phy = kmalloc_array(ftl->logmax, sizeof(u_int),  
> >
> >                                                   sizeof(*ftl->log2phy)  
> Ok, changed.
> 
> >  
> >> +                                  GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +     if (!ftl->log2phy) {
> >> +             ret = -ENOMEM;
> >> +             goto exit;
> >> +     }
> >> +
> >> +     /* initialize ftl->log2phy */
> >> +     for (i = 0; i < ftl->logmax; i++)
> >> +             ftl->log2phy[i] = UINT_MAX;
> >> +
> >> +     /* create physical-logical table */
> >> +     for (block_num = 0; block_num < phymax; block_num++) {
> >> +             block_adr = block_num * mtd->erasesize;
> >> +
> >> +             if (mtd_block_isbad(mtd, block_adr))
> >> +                     continue;
> >> +
> >> +             if (sharpsl_nand_read_oob(mtd, block_adr, mtd->oobsize, oob))
> >> +                     continue;
> >> +
> >> +             /* get logical block */
> >> +             log_num = sharpsl_nand_get_logical_num(oob);
> >> +
> >> +             /* FTL is not used? Exit here if the oob fingerprint is wrong */
> >> +             if (log_num == UINT_MAX) {
> >> +                     pr_info("sharpslpart: Sharp SL FTL not found.\n");
> >> +                     ret = -EINVAL;
> >> +                     goto exit;
> >> +             }

Okay, I overlooked that part. Why do you exit if there's a fingerprint
mismatch? Can't you just ignore this physical block and continue
scanning the remaining ones?