Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: mtd: nand: Macronix: document new binding
From: liao jaime
Date: Wed May 24 2023 - 01:30:50 EST
Hi William
>
> Hi Alvaro,
>
> On 05/17/2023 08:20 AM, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote:
> > Hi William,
> >
> > El mié, 17 may 2023 a las 7:30, William Zhang
> > (<william.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>) escribió:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 05/16/2023 12:02 PM, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote:
> >>> Sure,
> >>>
> >>> Here you go:
> >>> [ 0.000000] Linux version 5.15.111 (noltari@atlantis)
> >>> (mips-openwrt-linux-musl-gcc (OpenWrt GCC 12.3.0 r0+22899-466be0612a)
> >>> 12.3.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.40.0) #0 SMP Tue May 16 14:33:20 2023
> >>> [ 0.000000] CPU0 revision is: 0002a080 (Broadcom BMIPS4350)
> >>> [ 0.000000] MIPS: machine is Sercomm H500-s vfes
> >>> [ 0.000000] 128MB of RAM installed
> >>> [ 0.000000] earlycon: bcm63xx_uart0 at MMIO 0x10000180 (options '115200n8')
> >>> [ 0.000000] printk: bootconsole [bcm63xx_uart0] enabled
> >>> [ 0.000000] Initrd not found or empty - disabling initrd
> >>> [ 0.000000] Reserving 0KB of memory at 4194303KB for kdump
> >>> [ 0.000000] Primary instruction cache 64kB, VIPT, 4-way, linesize 16 bytes.
> >>> [ 0.000000] Primary data cache 32kB, 2-way, VIPT, cache aliases,
> >>> linesize 16 bytes
> >>> [ 0.000000] Zone ranges:
> >>> [ 0.000000] Normal [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x0000000007ffffff]
> >>> [ 0.000000] Movable zone start for each node
> >>> [ 0.000000] Early memory node ranges
> >>> [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x0000000007ffffff]
> >>> [ 0.000000] Initmem setup node 0 [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x0000000007ffffff]
> >>> [ 0.000000] percpu: Embedded 11 pages/cpu s13328 r8192 d23536 u45056
> >>> [ 0.000000] Built 1 zonelists, mobility grouping on. Total pages: 32480
> >>> [ 0.000000] Kernel command line: earlycon
> >>> [ 0.000000] Dentry cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 4, 65536
> >>> bytes, linear)
> >>> [ 0.000000] Inode-cache hash table entries: 8192 (order: 3, 32768
> >>> bytes, linear)
> >>> [ 0.000000] mem auto-init: stack:off, heap alloc:off, heap free:off
> >>> [ 0.000000] Memory: 108656K/131072K available (6902K kernel code,
> >>> 613K rwdata, 1404K rodata, 11872K init, 215K bss, 22416K reserved, 0K
> >>> cma-reserved)
> >>> [ 0.000000] SLUB: HWalign=64, Order=0-3, MinObjects=0, CPUs=2, Nodes=1
> >>> [ 0.000000] rcu: Hierarchical RCU implementation.
> >>> [ 0.000000] Tracing variant of Tasks RCU enabled.
> >>> [ 0.000000] rcu: RCU calculated value of scheduler-enlistment delay
> >>> is 10 jiffies.
> >>> [ 0.000000] NR_IRQS: 256
> >>> [ 0.000000] irq_bcm6345_l1: registered BCM6345 L1 intc (IRQs: 128)
> >>> [ 0.000000] irq_bcm6345_l1: CPU0 (irq = 2)
> >>> [ 0.000000] irq_bcm6345_l1: CPU1 (irq = 3)
> >>> [ 0.000000] brcm,bcm63268 detected @ 400 MHz
> >>> [ 0.000000] clocksource: MIPS: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles:
> >>> 0xffffffff, max_idle_ns: 9556302233 ns
> >>> [ 0.000002] sched_clock: 32 bits at 200MHz, resolution 5ns, wraps
> >>> every 10737418237ns
> >>> [ 0.008292] Calibrating delay loop... 398.13 BogoMIPS (lpj=1990656)
> >>> [ 0.074683] pid_max: default: 32768 minimum: 301
> >>> [ 0.081788] Mount-cache hash table entries: 1024 (order: 0, 4096
> >>> bytes, linear)
> >>> [ 0.089319] Mountpoint-cache hash table entries: 1024 (order: 0,
> >>> 4096 bytes, linear)
> >>> [ 0.106094] rcu: Hierarchical SRCU implementation.
> >>> [ 0.112665] smp: Bringing up secondary CPUs ...
> >>> [ 0.119348] SMP: Booting CPU1...
> >>> [ 8.330979] Primary instruction cache 64kB, VIPT, 4-way, linesize 16 bytes.
> >>> [ 8.331017] Primary data cache 32kB, 2-way, VIPT, cache aliases,
> >>> linesize 16 bytes
> >>> [ 8.331294] CPU1 revision is: 0002a080 (Broadcom BMIPS4350)
> >>> [ 0.182819] Synchronize counters for CPU 1:
> >>> [ 0.203500] SMP: CPU1 is running
> >>> [ 0.203512] done.
> >>> [ 0.213401] smp: Brought up 1 node, 2 CPUs
> >>> [ 0.228870] clocksource: jiffies: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles:
> >>> 0xffffffff, max_idle_ns: 19112604462750000 ns
> >>> [ 0.239058] futex hash table entries: 512 (order: 3, 32768 bytes, linear)
> >>> [ 0.246439] pinctrl core: initialized pinctrl subsystem
> >>> [ 0.254917] NET: Registered PF_NETLINK/PF_ROUTE protocol family
> >>> [ 0.312700] clocksource: Switched to clocksource MIPS
> >>> [ 0.321061] NET: Registered PF_INET protocol family
> >>> [ 0.326879] IP idents hash table entries: 2048 (order: 2, 16384
> >>> bytes, linear)
> >>> [ 0.335972] tcp_listen_portaddr_hash hash table entries: 512
> >>> (order: 0, 6144 bytes, linear)
> >>> [ 0.344721] Table-perturb hash table entries: 65536 (order: 6,
> >>> 262144 bytes, linear)
> >>> [ 0.352721] TCP established hash table entries: 1024 (order: 0,
> >>> 4096 bytes, linear)
> >>> [ 0.360622] TCP bind hash table entries: 1024 (order: 1, 8192 bytes, linear)
> >>> [ 0.368005] TCP: Hash tables configured (established 1024 bind 1024)
> >>> [ 0.375074] UDP hash table entries: 256 (order: 1, 8192 bytes, linear)
> >>> [ 0.381862] UDP-Lite hash table entries: 256 (order: 1, 8192 bytes, linear)
> >>> [ 0.389762] NET: Registered PF_UNIX/PF_LOCAL protocol family
> >>> [ 0.395748] PCI: CLS 0 bytes, default 16
> >>> [ 0.403410] workingset: timestamp_bits=14 max_order=15 bucket_order=1
> >>> [ 0.426490] squashfs: version 4.0 (2009/01/31) Phillip Lougher
> >>> [ 0.432492] jffs2: version 2.2 (NAND) (SUMMARY) (LZMA) (RTIME)
> >>> (CMODE_PRIORITY) (c) 2001-2006 Red Hat, Inc.
> >>> [ 0.459472] bcm63xx-power-controller 1000184c.power-controller:
> >>> registered 14 power domains
> >>> [ 0.470267] 10000180.serial: ttyS0 at MMIO 0x10000180 (irq = 8,
> >>> base_baud = 1562500) is a bcm63xx_uart
> >>> [ 0.479996] printk: console [ttyS0] enabled
> >>> [ 0.479996] printk: console [ttyS0] enabled
> >>> [ 0.488651] printk: bootconsole [bcm63xx_uart0] disabled
> >>> [ 0.488651] printk: bootconsole [bcm63xx_uart0] disabled
> >>> [ 0.533435] bcm2835-rng 10002880.rng: hwrng registered
> >>> [ 0.606025] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: there is not valid maps for
> >>> state default
> >>> [ 0.633977] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0xc2, Chip ID: 0xf1
> >>> [ 0.640506] nand: Macronix MX30LF1G18AC
> >>> [ 0.644551] nand: 128 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size:
> >>> 2048, OOB size: 64
> >>> [ 0.652359] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: detected 128MiB total,
> >>> 128KiB blocks, 2KiB pages, 16B OOB, 8-bit, BCH-4
> >>> [ 0.703373] Bad block table not found for chip 0
> >>> [ 0.732040] Bad block table not found for chip 0
> >>> [ 0.736842] Scanning device for bad blocks
> >>> [ 0.832678] CPU 0 Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual
> >>> address 00000014, epc == 8009b300, ra == 806cc650
> >>> [ 0.843628] Oops[#1]:
> >>> [ 0.845958] CPU: 0 PID: 88 Comm: hwrng Not tainted 5.15.111 #0
> >>> [ 0.851959] $ 0 : 00000000 00000001 00000008 00000000
> >>> [ 0.857358] $ 4 : 81808464 00000064 00000000 00000001
> >>> [ 0.862753] $ 8 : 81810000 00001ff0 00001c00 815b8880
> >>> [ 0.868146] $12 : 0000b79d 00000000 00000000 00009bb
> >>>
> >>> Please, tell me if you want me to add any debugging to the log.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Álvaro.
> >>>
> >>> El mar, 16 may 2023 a las 20:58, Florian Fainelli
> >>> (<f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>) escribió:
> >>>>
> >>>> +William,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/16/23 11:55, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Jaime,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've reproduced the issue on a Comtrend VR-3032u (MX30LF1G08AA). After
> >>>>> forcing it to check block protection (it's not supported on that
> >>>>> device), the NAND controller stops reading/writing anything.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @Florian is it possible that low level ops (GET_FEATURES/SET_FEATURES)
> >>>>> aren't supported on BCM63268 NAND controllers and this is causing the
> >>>>> issue?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, this looks like what we have seen as well even with newer NAND
> >>>> controllers actually. Would it be possible to obtain a full log from
> >>>> either of you?
> >>>>
> >>>> William, is this something you have seen before as well?
> >>>>
> >> No, I haven't seen such issue before. It is possible I didn't have this
> >> Macronix parts in my board. If I can find a board with Macronix part,
> >> I will try it. But we don't use this feature and don't connect the PT
> >> pin in our reference board which means the PT feature is disabled in the
> >> nand part.
> >>
> >> Alvaro, Do you know if your 63268 board has PT pin connected or not?
> >
> > No, I don't know if PT pin is connected.
> > I would have to open the case and check, but judging from the
> > following image I would say it's not connected:
> > https://openwrt.org/_media/media/sercomm/h500s/h500s-nand.jpg
> >
> >> Can you check if the macronix's lock and unlock function being calling
> >> before the hang? Or is it just get/set feature function getting called
> >> to determine PT is supported? The get/set feature function should work
> >> as they are used by other pathes
> >
> > No, the macronix's lock/unlock functions aren't called before the hang.
> > In fact, if I comment out the nand_get_features call and replace it
> > with ret = 1 it doesn't hang:
> > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/f1fcbaa18b28dec10281551dfe6ed3a3ed80e3d6/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c#L229-L230
> >
> I see. In fact I saw your earlier debug log with ll_op cmd dump for the
> nand_get_features function and they went through successfully. Really
> strange how this function call will cause problem to subsequent nand read.
>
> Can you keep this code commented out and then after the board boot up
> and manually write to nand controller register for these ll_op cmd
> sequence following the code of brcmnand_low_level_op, assuming you have
> a way to write to controller registering from a shell. If not, you
> might have to hack the brcmnand or base nand driver code and insert
> following call at some special condition at run time:
> ret = nand_get_features(chip, ONFI_FEATURE_ADDR_MXIC_PROTECTION,
> feature);
> Then check if nand read function still works. At least we can confirm
> if feature query function actually cause the problem. You can try
> different feature code and see if it make any difference.
>
> Question to Jaime, if PT pin is not connected, would the PT feature
> check cause any issue afterwards? Or the nand chip should just return
> block not protected?
PT will be keep low internally if not connected and IO2(PT#) will always "0"
during read block-protection status.
Thanks
Jaime
>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> Álvaro.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> El mié, 26 abr 2023 a las 9:24, liao jaime (<jaimeliao.tw@xxxxxxxxx>) escribió:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Álvaro
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In nand_scan_tail(), each manufacturer init function call will be execute.
> >>>>>> In macronix_nand_init(), block protect will be execute after flash detect.
> >>>>>> I have validate MX30LF1G18AC in Linux kernel v5.15.
> >>>>>> I didn't got situation "device hangs" on my side.
> >>>>>> BP is to prevent incorrect operations.
> >>>>>> Please check the controller settings for tracing this issue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>> Jaime
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hello YouChing and Jaime,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I still didn't get any feedback from you (or Macronix) on this issue.
> >>>>>>> Did you have time to look into it?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Álvaro.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> El vie, 24 mar 2023 a las 18:04, Álvaro Fernández Rojas
> >>>>>>> (<noltari@xxxxxxxxx>) escribió:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Miquèl,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2023-03-24 15:36 GMT+01:00, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Álvaro,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> + YouChing and Jaime from Macronix
> >>>>>>>>> TLDR for them: there is a misbehavior since Mason added block
> >>>>>>>>> protection support. Just checking if the blocks are protected seems to
> >>>>>>>>> misconfigure the chip entirely, see below. Any hints?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Could it be that the NAND is stuck expecting a read 0x00 command which
> >>>>>>>> isn’t sent after getting the features?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> noltari@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 15:15:47 +0100:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Miquèl,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 2023-03-24 14:45 GMT+01:00, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> According to Florian, low level should be supported on brcmnand
> >>>>>>>>>> controllers >= 4.0
> >>>>>>>>>> Also:
> >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/nomis/bcm963xx_4.12L.06B_consumer/blob/e2f23ddbb20bf75689372b6e6a5a0dc613f6e313/shared/opensource/include/bcm963xx/63268_map_part.h#L1597
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Just to be sure, you're using a mainline controller driver, not this
> >>>>>>>>> one?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, this was just to prove that the HW I’m using has get/set features support.
> >>>>>>>> I’m using OpenWrt, so it’s linux v5.15 driver.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Well, I can read/write the device if block protection isn’t disabled,
> >>>>>>>>>> so I guess we can confirm it’s unlocked…
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - is there anything that locks the device by calling mxic_nand_lock()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So nobody locks the device I guess? Did you add traces there?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It doesn’t get to the point that it enabled the lock/unlock functions
> >>>>>>>>>> since it fails when checking if feature is 0x38, so there’s no point
> >>>>>>>>>> in adding those traces…
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Right, it returns before setting these I guess.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - 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 think that after trying to get the feature it just start reading
> >>>>>>>>>> nonsense from the NAND and at some point it hangs due to that garbage…
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It should refuse to mount the device somehow, but in no case the kernel
> >>>>>>>>> should hang.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, I think that this is a side effect (maybe a different bug somewhere else).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Is it posible that the NAND starts behaving like this after getting
> >>>>>>>>>> the feature due to some specific config of my device?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> There’s no WP pin in brcmnand controllers < 7.0
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What about the chip?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Maybe it has a GPIO controlling that, but I don’t have that info…
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>> Miquèl
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Florian
> >>>>
> >
> > --
> > Álvaro
> >