Re: [RFC PATCH nand-next 0/2] meson-nand: support for older SoCs

[Liang Yang]

Hi Martin,

On 2019/3/7 21:09, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Tue,
> 5 Mar 2019 23:12:51 +0100:
>
> > Hi Liang,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 5:55 AM Liang Yang <liang.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hello Martin,
> > >
> > > On 2019/3/2 2:29, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> > > > Hi Liang,
> > > >
> > > > I am trying to add support for older SoCs to the meson-nand driver.
> > > > Back when the driver was in development I used an early revision (of
> > > > your driver) and did some modifications to make it work on older SoCs.
> > > >
> > > > Now that the driver is upstream I wanted to give it another try and
> > > > make a real patch out of it. Unfortunately it's not working anymore.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I know the NFC IP block revision on GXL is similar (or even
> > > > the same?) as on all older SoCs. As far as I can tell only the clock
> > > > setup is different on the older SoCs (which have a dedicated NAND
> > > > clock):
> > > > - we don't need the "amlogic,mmc-syscon" property on the older SoCs
> > > >     because we don't need to setup any muxing (common clock framework
> > > >     will do everything for us)
> > > > - "rx" and "tx" clocks don't exist
> > > > - I could not find any other differences between Meson8, Meson8b,
> > > >     Meson8m2, GXBB and GXL
> > > >   
> > > That is right. the serials NFC is almost the same except:
> > > 1) The clock control and source that M8-serials are not share with EMMC.
> > > 2) The base register address
> > > 3) DMA encryption option which we don't care on NFC driver.
> > great, thank you for confirming this!
> >
> > > > In this series I'm sending two patches which add support for the older
> > > > SoCs.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately these patches are currently not working for me (hence the
> > > > "RFC" prefix). I get a (strange) crash which is triggered by the
> > > > kzalloc() in meson_nfc_read_buf() - see below for more details.
> > > >
> > > > Can you please help me on this one? I'd like to know whether:
> > > > - the meson-nand driver works for you on GXL or AXG on linux-next?
> > > >     (I was running these patches on top of next-20190301 on my M8S
> > > >     board which uses a 32-bit Meson8m2 SoC. I don't have any board using
> > > >     a GXL SoC which also has NAND)
> > > Yes, it works on AXG platform using a MXIC slc nand flash(MX30LF4G); but
> > > i an not sure it runs the same flow with yours. because i see the print
> > > "Counld not find a valid ONFI parameter page, ...." in yours. i will try
> > > to reproduce it on AXG(i don't have a M8 platform now).
> > I'm looking forward to hear about the test results on your AXG boards
> > for reference: my board has a SK Hynix H27UCG8T2B (ID bytes: 0xad 0xde
> > 0x94 0xeb 0x74 0x44, 20nm MLC)
> > I have another board (where I haven't tested the NFC driver yet) with
> > a SK Hynix H27UCG8T2E (ID bytes: 0xad 0xde 0x14 0xa7 0x42 0x4a, 1Ynm
> > MLC). if it helps with your analysis I can test on that board as well
>
> Liang, you just have to fake the output of the ONFI page detection and
> you will probably run into this error which will then be easy to
> reproduce.

I have tested it on AXG platform; I find MX30LF4G also enter this flow , 
but it doesn't crash. log as follow:
[    1.018056] Could not find a valid ONFI parameter page, trying 
bit-wise majority to recover it
[    1.021057] ONFI parameter recovery failed, aborting
[    1.025966] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0xc2, Chip ID: 0xdc
[    1.032237] nand: Macronix NAND 512MiB 3,3V 8-bit
[    1.036889] nand: 512 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: 2048, 
OOB size: 64
[    1.045741] Bad block table not found for chip 0
[    1.050077] Bad block table not found for chip 0
[    1.053538] Scanning device for bad blocks
[    1.069094] Bad eraseblock 20 at 0x000000280000
[    1.071074] Bad eraseblock 24 at 0x000000300000
[    1.127494] random: fast init done
[    1.348754] Bad eraseblock 519 at 0x0000040e0000
[    1.632819] Bad eraseblock 1028 at 0x000008080000
[    2.405420] Bad eraseblock 2411 at 0x000012d60000
[    3.349276] Bad block table written to 0x00001ffe0000, version 0x01
[    3.350967] Bad block table written to 0x00001ffc0000, version 0x01
[    3.356429] 5 fixed-partitions partitions found on MTD device 
ffe07800.nfc
[    3.362925] Creating 5 MTD partitions on "ffe07800.nfc":
[    3.368188] 0x000000000000-0x000000200000 : "boot"
[    3.373970] 0x000000200000-0x000000600000 : "env"
[    3.378564] 0x000000600000-0x000001000000 : "system"
[    3.383511] 0x000001000000-0x000004000000 : "rootfs"
[    3.388525] 0x000004000000-0x00000c000000 : "media"

I am looking forward to a Hynix nand flash to test on GXL platform, and 
there should be something different from MXIC flash on ONFI page 
detection. I will update the result asap net week.
Do you have another type of nand flash to test on M8 platform ?
> Thanks,
> MiquÃl
>
> .