Re: [PATCH v6 6/8] spi: spi-qpic: add driver for QCOM SPI NAND flash Interface

[Miquel Raynal]

Hi,

> >> +static int qcom_spi_ooblayout_ecc(struct mtd_info *mtd, int section,
> >> +				  struct mtd_oob_region *oobregion)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct nand_device *nand = mtd_to_nanddev(mtd);
> >> +	struct qcom_nand_controller *snandc = nand_to_qcom_snand(nand);
> >> +	struct qpic_ecc *qecc = snandc->qspi->ecc;
> >> +
> >> +	if (section > 1)
> >> +		return -ERANGE;
> >> +
> >> +	if (!section) {
> >> +		oobregion->length = (qecc->bytes * (qecc->steps - 1)) + qecc->bbm_size;
> >> +		oobregion->offset = 0;  
> > 
> > No, offset 0 is for the BBM. This is wrong.
> > The whole oob layout looks really really wrong.
> > 
> > ECC bytes are where the ECC engine puts its bytes in the OOB area.
> > Free bytes start after the BBM and fill the gaps until the end of the
> > area, except where there are ECC bytes.  
>   QPIC NAND controller having its own page layout with ecc and without ecc.
>   The same layout we are using in raw nand driver as well, so i used the
>   same here. The below info is already there in qcom raw nand driver file
>   in page layout info.
> 
>   QPIC NAND controller layout as below:
> 
>    Layout with ECC enabled:
> 
>      |----------------------|  |---------------------------------|
>      |           xx.......yy|  |             *********xx.......yy|
>      |    DATA   xx..ECC..yy|  |    DATA     **SPARE**xx..ECC..yy|
>      |   (516)   xx.......yy|  |  (516-n*4)  **(n*4)**xx.......yy|
>      |           xx.......yy|  |             *********xx.......yy|
>      |----------------------|  |---------------------------------|
>       codeword 1,2..n-1                  codeword n
>      <---(528/532 Bytes)-->    <-------(528/532 Bytes)--------->
> 
>      n = Number of codewords in the page
>      . = ECC bytes
>      * = Spare/free bytes
>      x = Unused byte(s)
>      y = Reserved byte(s)
> 
>      2K page: n = 4, spare = 16 bytes
>      4K page: n = 8, spare = 32 bytes
>      8K page: n = 16, spare = 64 bytes
> 
>      the qcom nand controller operates at a sub page/codeword level. each
>      codeword is 528 and 532 bytes for 4 bit and 8 bit ECC modes respectively.
>      the number of ECC bytes vary based on the ECC strength and the bus width.
> 
>      the first n - 1 codewords contains 516 bytes of user data, the remaining
>      12/16 bytes consist of ECC and reserved data. The nth codeword contains
>      both user data and spare(oobavail) bytes that sum up to 516 bytes.
> 
>      When we access a page with ECC enabled, the reserved bytes(s) are not
>      accessible at all. When reading, we fill up these unreadable positions
>      with 0xffs. When writing, the controller skips writing the inaccessible
>      bytes.
> 
>      Layout with ECC disabled:
> 
>      |------------------------------|  |---------------------------------------|
>      |         yy          xx.......|  |         bb          *********xx......|
>      |  DATA1  yy  DATA2   xx..ECC..|  |  DATA1  bb  DATA2   **SPARE**xx.ECC..|
>      | (size1) yy (size2)  xx.......|  | (size1) bb (size2)  **(n*4)**xx......|
>      |         yy          xx.......|  |         bb          *********xx......|
>      |------------------------------|  |---------------------------------------|
>           codeword 1,2..n-1                        codeword n
>      <-------(528/532 Bytes)------>    <-----------(528/532 Bytes)----------->
> 
>      n = Number of codewords in the page
>      . = ECC bytes
>      * = Spare/free bytes
>      x = Unused byte(s)
>      y = Dummy Bad Bock byte(s)
>      b = Real Bad Block byte(s)
>      size1/size2 = function of codeword size and 'n'
> 
>      when the ECC block is disabled, one reserved byte (or two for 16 bit bus
>      width) is now accessible. For the first n - 1 codewords, these are dummy Bad
>      Block Markers. In the last codeword, this position contains the real BBM
> 
>      In order to have a consistent layout between RAW and ECC modes, we assume
>      the following OOB layout arrangement:
> 
>      |-----------|  |--------------------|
>      |yyxx.......|  |bb*********xx.......|
>      |yyxx..ECC..|  |bb*FREEOOB*xx..ECC..|
>      |yyxx.......|  |bb*********xx.......|
>      |yyxx.......|  |bb*********xx.......|
>      |-----------|  |--------------------|
>      first n - 1       nth OOB region
>      OOB regions
> 
>      n = Number of codewords in the page
>      . = ECC bytes
>      * = FREE OOB bytes
>      y = Dummy bad block byte(s) (inaccessible when ECC enabled)
>      x = Unused byte(s)
>      b = Real bad block byte(s) (inaccessible when ECC enabled)
> 
>      This layout is read as is when ECC is disabled. When ECC is enabled, the
>      inaccessible Bad Block byte(s) are ignored when we write to a page/oob,
>      and assumed as 0xffs when we read a page/oob. The ECC, unused and
>      dummy/real bad block bytes are grouped as ecc bytes (i.e, ecc->bytes is
>      the sum of the three).

Thanks for the detailed explanation (which would benefit from being
added somewhere in a comment, maybe at the top of the file).

Unfortunately, these ooblayout callbacks do work on a flat <data><oob>
layout, not on the hardware ECC engine layout. So whatever the real
physical position of the bad block marker within the NAND array, these
markers will always be at offset 0 and 1 in the OOB final buffer.

Same applies to the spare and ECC bytes. These layouts are totally
wrong and must be fixed. If the layouts are the same in both raw/spi
cases, maybe they should be part of the common file?

> >> +	} else {
> >> +		oobregion->length = qecc->ecc_bytes_hw + qecc->spare_bytes;
> >> +		oobregion->offset = mtd->oobsize - oobregion->length;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int qcom_spi_ooblayout_free(struct mtd_info *mtd, int section,
> >> +				   struct mtd_oob_region *oobregion)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct nand_device *nand = mtd_to_nanddev(mtd);
> >> +	struct qcom_nand_controller *snandc = nand_to_qcom_snand(nand);
> >> +	struct qpic_ecc *qecc = snandc->qspi->ecc;
> >> +
> >> +	if (section)
> >> +		return -ERANGE;
> >> +
> >> +	oobregion->length = qecc->steps * 4;
> >> +	oobregion->offset = ((qecc->steps - 1) * qecc->bytes) + qecc->bbm_size;
> >> +
> >> +	return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +  
> > 
> > ...
> >   
> >> +static int qcom_spi_ecc_prepare_io_req_pipelined(struct nand_device *nand,
> >> +						 struct nand_page_io_req *req)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct qcom_nand_controller *snandc = nand_to_qcom_snand(nand);
> >> +	struct qpic_ecc *ecc_cfg = nand_to_ecc_ctx(nand);
> >> +	struct mtd_info *mtd = nanddev_to_mtd(nand);
> >> +
> >> +	snandc->qspi->ecc = ecc_cfg;
> >> +	snandc->qspi->pagesize = mtd->writesize;
> >> +	snandc->qspi->raw_rw = false;
> >> +	snandc->qspi->oob_rw = false;
> >> +	snandc->qspi->page_rw = false;
> >> +
> >> +	if (req->datalen)
> >> +		snandc->qspi->page_rw = true;
> >> +
> >> +	if (req->ooblen) {
> >> +		snandc->qspi->oob_rw = true;
> >> +		if (req->ooblen == BAD_BLOCK_MARKER_SIZE)
> >> +			snandc->qspi->read_last_cw = true;  
> > 
> > ???  
>    As per QPIC controller layout , the actual babd block marker will
>    be present in last code word. Thats why i have added this check.
>    to read only last codeword for bad block check.

You need to comply with the request. If ooblen is != 0, you need to
read the codeword(s) where the oob is. Please don't try to be smarter
than that. Checking the _value_ of ooblen is an optimization I don't
think is worth.

> >   
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	if (req->mode == MTD_OPS_RAW)
> >> +		snandc->qspi->raw_rw = true;
> >> +
> >> +	return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int qcom_spi_ecc_finish_io_req_pipelined(struct nand_device *nand,
> >> +						struct nand_page_io_req *req)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct qcom_nand_controller *snandc = nand_to_qcom_snand(nand);
> >> +	struct mtd_info *mtd = nanddev_to_mtd(nand);
> >> +
> >> +	if (req->mode == MTD_OPS_RAW || req->type != NAND_PAGE_READ)
> >> +		return 0;
> >> +
> >> +	if (snandc->qspi->ecc_stats.failed)
> >> +		mtd->ecc_stats.failed += snandc->qspi->ecc_stats.failed;
> >> +	mtd->ecc_stats.corrected += snandc->qspi->ecc_stats.corrected;  
> > 
> > Seems strange  
>    In flash error check for each code word i am updating the error value.
>    So on finishing on io i am assigning that error to mtd variables so that
>    upper layer check for error.

You don't clear the qspi ecc_stats so this cannot work properly.

Plus, I would welcome an else statement for incrementing the corrected
field.

> >   
> >> +
> >> +	if (snandc->qspi->ecc_stats.failed)
> >> +		return -EBADMSG;
> >> +	else
> >> +		return snandc->qspi->ecc_stats.bitflips;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static struct nand_ecc_engine_ops qcom_spi_ecc_engine_ops_pipelined = {
> >> +	.init_ctx = qcom_spi_ecc_init_ctx_pipelined,
> >> +	.cleanup_ctx = qcom_spi_ecc_cleanup_ctx_pipelined,
> >> +	.prepare_io_req = qcom_spi_ecc_prepare_io_req_pipelined,
> >> +	.finish_io_req = qcom_spi_ecc_finish_io_req_pipelined,
> >> +};
> >> +  
> > 
> > ...
> >   
> >> +static int qcom_spi_read_page_raw(struct qcom_nand_controller *snandc,
> >> +				  const struct spi_mem_op *op)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct qpic_ecc *ecc_cfg = snandc->qspi->ecc;
> >> +	u8 *data_buf = NULL, *oob_buf = NULL;
> >> +	int ret, cw;
> >> +	u32 num_cw = snandc->qspi->num_cw;
> >> +
> >> +	if (snandc->qspi->page_rw)  
> > 
> > I don't like this indirection very much. Can't you simplify this and
> > just follow the spi-mem op instead of constantly trying to add
> > additional stuff?  
>    This indirection needed due to QPIC controller will not take all the instruction
>    one-by-one , once we will set CMD_EXEC = 1, then it will execute all the instruction
>    at once.

The spi_mem_op structure already describes the whole operation. Why do
you split the operation in sub routines if you can't actually do that?

> > 
> > The hardware is already quite complex, but it feels like your adding
> > yet another pile of unnecessary complexity.  
>    Yes hardware is complex. let me check if i can further optimize as per spi-mem op
>    as you suggested.
> >   
> >> +		data_buf = op->data.buf.in;
> >> +
> >> +	if (snandc->qspi->oob_rw)
> >> +		oob_buf = op->data.buf.in;  

..

> >> +static int qcom_spi_write_page_cache(struct qcom_nand_controller *snandc,
> >> +				     const struct spi_mem_op *op)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct qpic_snand_op s_op = {};
> >> +	u32 cmd;
> >> +
> >> +	cmd = qcom_spi_cmd_mapping(snandc, op->cmd.opcode);  
> > 
> > I've asked for switch cases to return an error in case they could not
> > handle the request. If you don't check the returned values, it
> > does not make any sense.  
>   Ok, will fix in next patch.
> >   
> >> +	s_op.cmd_reg = cmd;
> >> +
> >> +	if (op->cmd.opcode == SPINAND_PROGRAM_LOAD) {
> >> +		if (snandc->qspi->page_rw)
> >> +			snandc->qspi->data_buf = (u8 *)op->data.buf.out;  
> > 
> > What you do here does not write anything in a page cache.  
>    No here just updating the buffer , actual write will happen in program_execute.
>    This is due to QPIC controller will not take all the instruction one-by-one.
>    once we will set CMD_EXEC = 1, then it will execute all the instruction
>    at once. So accumulating all the instruction and then executing at once in
>    program_execute.
> > 
> > I also don't understand why you would have to check against the
> > SPINAND_PROGRAM_LOAD opcode.  
>    Because the actual write will happen in program_execute. and here
>    PROGRAM_EXECUTE command will also land, so that added the check.
> >   
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int qcom_spi_send_cmdaddr(struct qcom_nand_controller *snandc,
> >> +				 const struct spi_mem_op *op)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct qpic_snand_op s_op = {};
> >> +	u32 cmd;
> >> +	int ret, opcode;
> >> +
> >> +	cmd = qcom_spi_cmd_mapping(snandc, op->cmd.opcode);
> >> +
> >> +	s_op.cmd_reg = cmd;
> >> +	s_op.addr1_reg = op->addr.val;
> >> +	s_op.addr2_reg = 0;
> >> +
> >> +	opcode = op->cmd.opcode;
> >> +
> >> +	switch (opcode) {
> >> +	case SPINAND_WRITE_EN:
> >> +		return 0;
> >> +	case SPINAND_PROGRAM_EXECUTE:
> >> +		s_op.addr1_reg = op->addr.val << 16;
> >> +		s_op.addr2_reg = op->addr.val >> 16 & 0xff;
> >> +		snandc->qspi->addr1 = s_op.addr1_reg;
> >> +		snandc->qspi->addr2 = s_op.addr2_reg;
> >> +		snandc->qspi->cmd = cmd;
> >> +		return qcom_spi_program_execute(snandc, op);
> >> +	case SPINAND_READ:
> >> +		s_op.addr1_reg = (op->addr.val << 16);
> >> +		s_op.addr2_reg = op->addr.val >> 16 & 0xff;
> >> +		snandc->qspi->addr1 = s_op.addr1_reg;
> >> +		snandc->qspi->addr2 = s_op.addr2_reg;
> >> +		snandc->qspi->cmd = cmd;
> >> +		return 0;
> >> +	case SPINAND_ERASE:
> >> +		s_op.addr2_reg = (op->addr.val >> 16) & 0xffff;
> >> +		s_op.addr1_reg = op->addr.val;
> >> +		snandc->qspi->addr1 = (s_op.addr1_reg << 16);
> >> +		snandc->qspi->addr2 = s_op.addr2_reg;
> >> +		snandc->qspi->cmd = cmd;
> >> +		qcom_spi_block_erase(snandc);
> >> +		return 0;
> >> +	default:
> >> +		break;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	snandc->buf_count = 0;
> >> +	snandc->buf_start = 0;
> >> +	qcom_clear_read_regs(snandc);
> >> +	qcom_clear_bam_transaction(snandc);
> >> +
> >> +	snandc->regs->cmd = s_op.cmd_reg;
> >> +	snandc->regs->exec = 1;
> >> +	snandc->regs->addr0 = s_op.addr1_reg;
> >> +	snandc->regs->addr1 = s_op.addr2_reg;
> >> +
> >> +	qcom_write_reg_dma(snandc, &snandc->regs->cmd, NAND_FLASH_CMD, 3, NAND_BAM_NEXT_SGL);
> >> +	qcom_write_reg_dma(snandc, &snandc->regs->exec, NAND_EXEC_CMD, 1, NAND_BAM_NEXT_SGL);
> >> +
> >> +	ret = qcom_submit_descs(snandc);

And you really don't want to check the validity of the opcode with what
you support before submitting the descriptors?

> >> +	if (ret)
> >> +		dev_err(snandc->dev, "failure in sbumitting cmd descriptor\n");  
> > 
> > typo  
>   Ok , will fix in next patch.
> >   
> >> +
> >> +	return ret;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int qcom_spi_io_op(struct qcom_nand_controller *snandc, const struct spi_mem_op *op)
> >> +{
> >> +	int ret, val, opcode;
> >> +	bool copy = false, copy_ftr = false;
> >> +
> >> +	ret = qcom_spi_send_cmdaddr(snandc, op);
> >> +	if (ret)
> >> +		return ret;
> >> +
> >> +	snandc->buf_count = 0;
> >> +	snandc->buf_start = 0;
> >> +	qcom_clear_read_regs(snandc);
> >> +	qcom_clear_bam_transaction(snandc);
> >> +	opcode = op->cmd.opcode;
> >> +
> >> +	switch (opcode) {
> >> +	case SPINAND_READID:
> >> +		snandc->buf_count = 4;
> >> +		qcom_read_reg_dma(snandc, NAND_READ_ID, 1, NAND_BAM_NEXT_SGL);
> >> +		copy = true;
> >> +		break;
> >> +	case SPINAND_GET_FEATURE:
> >> +		snandc->buf_count = 4;
> >> +		qcom_read_reg_dma(snandc, NAND_FLASH_FEATURES, 1, NAND_BAM_NEXT_SGL);
> >> +		copy_ftr = true;
> >> +		break;
> >> +	case SPINAND_SET_FEATURE:
> >> +		snandc->regs->flash_feature = *(u32 *)op->data.buf.out;
> >> +		qcom_write_reg_dma(snandc, &snandc->regs->flash_feature,
> >> +				   NAND_FLASH_FEATURES, 1, NAND_BAM_NEXT_SGL);
> >> +		break;
> >> +	case SPINAND_RESET:
> >> +		return 0;
> >> +	case SPINAND_PROGRAM_EXECUTE:
> >> +		return 0;
> >> +	case SPINAND_WRITE_EN:
> >> +		return 0;
> >> +	case SPINAND_ERASE:
> >> +		return 0;
> >> +	case SPINAND_READ:
> >> +		return 0;  
> > 
> > You can stack the cases  
> Ok
> >   
> >> +	default:
> >> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	ret = qcom_submit_descs(snandc);
> >> +	if (ret)
> >> +		dev_err(snandc->dev, "failure in submitting descriptor for:%d\n", opcode);
> >> +
> >> +	if (copy) {
> >> +		qcom_nandc_dev_to_mem(snandc, true);
> >> +		memcpy(op->data.buf.in, snandc->reg_read_buf, snandc->buf_count);
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	if (copy_ftr) {
> >> +		qcom_nandc_dev_to_mem(snandc, true);
> >> +		val = le32_to_cpu(*(__le32 *)snandc->reg_read_buf);
> >> +		val >>= 8;
> >> +		memcpy(op->data.buf.in, &val, snandc->buf_count);
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	return ret;
> >> +}

Thanks,
Miquèl