Re: [LINUX PATCH v12] mtd: rawnand: pl353: Add basic driver for arm pl353 smc nand interface

[Romain Perier]

Hi,

Le mer. 2 janv. 2019 Ã 10:23, Naga Sureshkumar Relli
<nagasure@xxxxxxxxxx> a Ãcrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Miquel Raynal [mailto:miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 2:04 PM
> > To: Romain Perier <romain.perier@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Naga Sureshkumar Relli <nagasure@xxxxxxxxxx>; Boris Brezillon
> > <bbrezillon@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; peterpandong@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [LINUX PATCH v12] mtd: rawnand: pl353: Add basic driver for arm pl353
> > smc nand interface
> >
> > Hi Romain,
> >
> > Switching Boris address.
> >
> > Romain Perier <romain.perier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on Fri, 21 Dec 2018
> > 10:17:50 +0100:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I have rebased this patch onto 4.19.11. I use it on a Zynq7000-based
> > > board with a NAND chip Micron MT29F4G08ABADAH4, since ~2 weeks now.
> > > The only problem I have to report is that when I boot with an
> > > unchanged driver on my board, I get the following logs:
> > >
> > > [    1.988797] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0x2c, Chip ID: 0xdc
> > > [    1.995184] nand: Micron MT29F4G08ABADAH4
> > > [    1.999187] nand: 512 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 64
> > > [    2.402661] nand: timeout while waiting for chip to become ready
> > > [    2.408665] nand: timing mode 5 not acknowledged by the NAND chip
> > > [    2.416251] Bad block table not found for chip 0
> > > [    2.422278] Bad block table not found for chip 0
> > > [    2.426903] Scanning device for bad blocks
> > > [    2.431024] Bad eraseblock 0 at 0x000000000000
> > > [    2.435509] Bad eraseblock 1 at 0x000000020000
> > > [    2.439978] Bad eraseblock 2 at 0x000000040000
> > > [    2.444465] Bad eraseblock 3 at 0x000000060000
> > > [    2.448936] Bad eraseblock 4 at 0x000000080000
> > > [    2.453423] Bad eraseblock 5 at 0x0000000a0000
> > > [    2.457893] Bad eraseblock 6 at 0x0000000c0000
> > > [    2.462354] Bad eraseblock 7 at 0x0000000e0000
> > > [    2.466841] Bad eraseblock 8 at 0x000000100000
> > > [    2.471304] Bad eraseblock 9 at 0x000000120000
> > > [    2.475793] Bad eraseblock 10 at 0x000000140000
> > > [    2.480349] Bad eraseblock 11 at 0x000000160000
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >
> > > After investigation, it seems that during the nand_scan phase, the
> > > NAND subsystem tests different timing modes on the NAND chip (mode 0
> > > seems to be apply during reset, and then it tries to detect the best
> > > mode supported by the NAND chip). Only the mode 0 works here, trying
> > > the use the mode 5 resuls in an error (as you can see in the log) and
> > > a bad BBT detection. Both modes are supported by the NAND chip. In
> > > order to fix this, I had to put the nfc timing into the device node of the nfc, inside the DT
> > (that's not a real fix, ihmo).
> >
> > Thanks for testing! Indeed, the ->setup_data_interface() callback should be fixed.
> Ok, let me check.
> Meanwhile, can you share the timings that you put inside the DT?

Sure, I have simply added an array in the DT:

pl353,nand-controller-timings=<4 4 2 2 1 1 2>;

Then, I pass this array directly to pl353_smc_set_cycles().  (I got
these value from the hdf originally, then
I ported the DT to a mainline format, written by hand).

Hope this helps,
Regards,
Romain

> >
> > > Except this, everything is working as expected. Everything is stable
> > > with correct performances.
> > >
> > > If I can provide more informations, feel free to ask.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > +static int pl353_setup_data_interface(struct mtd_info *mtd, int csline,
> > > > +                                const struct nand_data_interface *conf) {
> > > > + struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
> > > > + struct pl353_nand_controller *xnfc =
> > > > +         container_of(chip, struct pl353_nand_controller, chip);
> > > > + const struct nand_sdr_timings *sdr;
> > > > + u32 timings[7], mckperiodps;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (csline == NAND_DATA_IFACE_CHECK_ONLY)
> > > > +         return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + sdr = nand_get_sdr_timings(conf);
> > > > + if (IS_ERR(sdr))
> > > > +         return PTR_ERR(sdr);
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > +  * SDR timings are given in pico-seconds while NFC timings must be
> > > > +  * expressed in NAND controller clock cycles.
> > > > +  */
> > > > + mckperiodps = NSEC_PER_SEC / clk_get_rate(xnfc->mclk);
> > > > + mckperiodps *= 1000;
> > > > + if (sdr->tRC_min <= 20000)
> > > > +         /*
> > > > +          * PL353 SMC needs one extra read cycle in SDR Mode 5
> > > > +          * This is not written anywhere in the datasheet but
> > > > +          * the results observed during testing.
> > > > +          */
> > > > +         timings[0] = DIV_ROUND_UP(sdr->tRC_min, mckperiodps) + 1;
> > > > + else
> > > > +         timings[0] = DIV_ROUND_UP(sdr->tRC_min, mckperiodps);
> > > > +
> > > > + timings[1] = DIV_ROUND_UP(sdr->tWC_min, mckperiodps);
> > > > + /*
> > > > +  * For all SDR modes, PL353 SMC needs tREA max value as 1,
> > > > +  * Results observed during testing.
> > > > +  */
> > > > + timings[2] = PL353_TREA_MAX_VALUE;
> > > > + timings[3] = DIV_ROUND_UP(sdr->tWP_min, mckperiodps);
> > > > + timings[4] = DIV_ROUND_UP(sdr->tCLR_min, mckperiodps);
> > > > + timings[5] = DIV_ROUND_UP(sdr->tAR_min, mckperiodps);
> > > > + timings[6] = DIV_ROUND_UP(sdr->tRR_min, mckperiodps);
> > > > + pl353_smc_set_cycles(timings);
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > If I hack this function in order to limit the timings only to mode 0,
> > > everything works. Otherwise it hangs when it tries to apply mode 5.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe Naga is not using a chip compatible with mode 5 and did not ran into this issue?
> No, these are the chips I am using, S34ML01G1 and MT29F2G16ABAEAWP.
> These are up to mode 5 compatible.
>
> Thanks,
> Naga Sureshkumar Relli
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > MiquÃl