Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: mtd: nand: Macronix: document new binding
From: Miquel Raynal
Date: Fri Mar 24 2023 - 09:46:11 EST
Hi Álvaro,
noltari@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 12:21:11 +0100:
> El vie, 24 mar 2023 a las 11:49, Miquel Raynal
> (<miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>) escribió:
> >
> > Hi Álvaro,
> >
> > noltari@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 11:31:17 +0100:
> >
> > > Hi Miquèl,
> > >
> > > El vie, 24 mar 2023 a las 10:40, Miquel Raynal
> > > (<miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>) escribió:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Álvaro,
> > > >
> > > > noltari@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 23 Mar 2023 13:45:09 +0100:
> > > >
> > > > > Add new "mxic,disable-block-protection" binding documentation.
> > > > > This binding allows disabling block protection support for those devices not
> > > > > supporting it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand-macronix.txt | 3 +++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand-macronix.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand-macronix.txt
> > > > > index ffab28a2c4d1..03f65ca32cd3 100644
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand-macronix.txt
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand-macronix.txt
> > > > > @@ -16,6 +16,9 @@ in children nodes.
> > > > > Required NAND chip properties in children mode:
> > > > > - randomizer enable: should be "mxic,enable-randomizer-otp"
> > > > >
> > > > > +Optional NAND chip properties in children mode:
> > > > > +- block protection disable: should be "mxic,disable-block-protection"
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > Besides the fact that nowadays we prefer to see binding conversions to
> > > > yaml before adding anything, I don't think this will fly.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure exactly what "disable block protection" means, we
> > > > already have similar properties like "lock" and "secure-regions", not
> > > > sure they will fit but I think it's worth checking.
> > >
> > > As explained in 2/2, commit 03a539c7a118 introduced a regression on
> > > Sercomm H500-s (BCM63268) OpenWrt devices with Macronix MX30LF1G18AC
> > > which hangs the device.
> > >
> > > This is the log with block protection disabled:
> > > [ 0.495831] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: there is not valid maps for
> > > state default
> > > [ 0.504995] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0xc2, Chip ID: 0xf1
> > > [ 0.511526] nand: Macronix MX30LF1G18AC
> > > [ 0.515586] nand: 128 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size:
> > > 2048, OOB size: 64
> > > [ 0.523516] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: detected 128MiB total,
> > > 128KiB blocks, 2KiB pages, 16B OOB, 8-bit, BCH-4
> > > [ 0.535912] Bad block table found at page 65472, version 0x01
> > > [ 0.544268] Bad block table found at page 65408, version 0x01
> > > [ 0.954329] 9 fixed-partitions partitions found on MTD device brcmnand.0
> > > ...
> > >
> > > This is the log with block protection enabled:
> > > [ 0.495095] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: there is not valid maps for
> > > state default
> > > [ 0.504249] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0xc2, Chip ID: 0xf1
> > > [ 0.510772] nand: Macronix MX30LF1G18AC
> > > [ 0.514874] nand: 128 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size:
> > > 2048, OOB size: 64
> > > [ 0.522780] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: detected 128MiB total,
> > > 128KiB blocks, 2KiB pages, 16B OOB, 8-bit, BCH-4
> > > [ 0.539687] Bad block table not found for chip 0
> > > [ 0.550153] Bad block table not found for chip 0
> > > [ 0.555069] Scanning device for bad blocks
> > > [ 0.601213] CPU 1 Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual
> > > address 10277f00, epc == 8039ce70, ra == 8016ad50
> > > *** Device hangs ***
> > >
> > > Enabling macronix_nand_block_protection_support() makes the device
> > > unable to detect the bad block table and hangs it when trying to scan
> > > for bad blocks.
> >
> > Please trace nand_macronix.c and look:
> > - are the get_features and set_features really supported by the
> > controller driver?
>
> This is what I could find by debugging:
> [ 0.494993] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: there is not valid maps for
> state default
> [ 0.505375] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0xc2, Chip ID: 0xf1
> [ 0.512077] nand: Macronix MX30LF1G18AC
> [ 0.515994] nand: 128 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size:
> 2048, OOB size: 64
> [ 0.523928] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: detected 128MiB total,
> 128KiB blocks, 2KiB pages, 16B OOB, 8-bit, BCH-4
> [ 0.534415] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: ll_op cmd 0xa00ee
> [ 0.539988] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: ll_op cmd 0x600a0
> [ 0.545659] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: ll_op cmd 0x10000
> [ 0.551214] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: NAND_CMD_GET_FEATURES = 0x00
> [ 0.557843] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: ll_op cmd 0x10000
> [ 0.563475] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: NAND_CMD_GET_FEATURES = 0x00
> [ 0.569998] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: ll_op cmd 0x10000
> [ 0.575653] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: NAND_CMD_GET_FEATURES = 0x00
> [ 0.582246] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: ll_op cmd 0x80010000
> [ 0.588067] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: NAND_CMD_GET_FEATURES = 0x00
> [ 0.594657] nand: nand_get_features: addr=a0 subfeature_param=[00
> 00 00 00] -> 0
> [ 0.602341] macronix_nand_block_protection_support:
> ONFI_FEATURE_ADDR_MXIC_PROTECTION=0
> [ 0.610548] macronix_nand_block_protection_support: !=
> MXIC_BLOCK_PROTECTION_ALL_LOCK
> [ 0.624760] Bad block table not found for chip 0
> [ 0.635542] Bad block table not found for chip 0
> [ 0.640270] Scanning device for bad blocks
>
> I don't know how to tell if get_features / set_features is really supported...
Looks like your driver does not support exec_op but the core provides a
get/set_feature implementation.
>
> > - what is the state of the locking configuration in the chip when you
> > boot?
>
> Unlocked, I guess...
> How can I check that?
It's in your dump, the chip returns 0, meaning it's all unlocked,
apparently.
> > - is there anything that locks the device by calling mxic_nand_lock() ?
So nobody locks the device I guess? Did you add traces there?
> > - finding no bbt is one thing, hanging is another, where is it hanging
> > exactly? (offset in nand/ and line in the code)
>
> I've got no idea...
You can use ftrace or just add printks a bit everywhere and try to get
closer and closer.
I looked at the patch, I don't see anything strange. Besides, I have a
close enough datasheet and I don't see what could confuse the device.
Are you really sure this patch is the problem? Is the WP pin wired on
your design?
Thanks,
Miquèl