From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Cc: richard@nod.at, dwmw2@infradead.org, computersforpeace@gmail.com,
marek.vasut@gmail.com, cyrille.pitchen@atmel.com,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mark.marshall@omicronenergy.com, b44839@freescale.com,
prabhakar@freescale.com
Subject: Re: fsl_ifc_nand: are blank pages protected by ECC?
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:15:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170419221507.GA24914@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170419231804.5a04ed69@bbrezillon>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4142 bytes --]
Hi!
> > We have some problems with fsl_ifc_nand ... in the old kernels, but
> > this one does not seem to be fixed in v4.11, either.
> >
> > UBIFS complains:
> >
> > UBIFS error (pid 931): ubifs_scan: corrupt empty space at LEB 282:252630
> > UBIFS error (pid 931): ubifs_scanned_corruption: corruption at LEB 282:252630
> > UBIFS error (pid 931): ubifs_scanned_corruption: first 1322 bytes from LEB 282:252630
> > UBIFS error (pid 931): ubifs_scan: LEB 282 scanning failed
> >
> > Possible explanation is here:
> >
> > https://e2e.ti.com/support/dsp/davinci_digital_media_processors/f/716/t/289605
> >
> > # I see on the forum that this issue has been raised before - my
> > # understanding is that the omap2 nand driver does not perform ECC
> > # detection/correction on empty pages so when UBIFS checks the empty
> > # space data and doesn't read all 0xFF then it fails and mounts
> > # read-only. I didn't find any good solution - only a workaround to
> > # remove the UBIFS check..
> >
> > So I checked fsl_ifc_nand.c in v4.11-rc, and yes, it seems to have the
> > same problem:
> >
> > if (errors == 15) {
> > /*
> > * Uncorrectable error.
> > * OK only if the whole page is blank.
> > *
> > * We disable ECCER reporting due to...
> > * erratum IFC-A002770 -- so report it now if we
> > * see an uncorrectable error in ECCSTAT.
> > */
> > if (!is_blank(mtd, bufnum))
> > ctrl->nand_stat |=
> > IFC_NAND_EVTER_STAT_ECCER;
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > is_blank() checks for all 0xff's, so single-bit 0xfe in the data will
> > result in_blank() == 0 and uncorrectable error being signaled.
> >
> > Should the driver be modified somehow?
>
> Yep, nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk() [1] is here to help you check this
> case, unfortunately, it's not directly applicable here, because this
> function takes regular pointers and not __iomem ones. You'll either
> have to copy the data in an intermediate buffer before calling
> nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(), or cast the SRAM region to a void
> pointer (which is usually not a good idea). The last option would be to
> open code nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(), but I'd really like to avoid
> that (for maintainability concerns).
Ok, thanks a lot for the pointer, that should be doable.
Core of the code is:
1357 for (; len >= sizeof(long);
1358 len -= sizeof(long), bitmap += sizeof(long)) {
1359 weight = hweight_long(*((unsigned long
*)bitmap));
1360 bitflips += BITS_PER_LONG - weight;
1361 if (unlikely(bitflips > bitflips_threshold))
1362 return -EBADMSG;
1363 }
Someone clearly optimized this code (took care to do long accesses
etc), but afaict hweight is quite a heavy operation:
_GLOBAL(__arch_hweight32)
BEGIN_FTR_SECTION
b __sw_hweight32
nop
nop
nop
nop
nop
nop
FTR_SECTION_ELSE
BEGIN_FTR_SECTION_NESTED(51)
PPC_POPCNTB(R3,R3)
srdi r4,r3,16
add r3,r4,r3
srdi r4,r3,8
add r3,r4,r3
clrldi r3,r3,64-8
blr
FTR_SECTION_ELSE_NESTED(51)
PPC_POPCNTW(R3,R3)
clrldi r3,r3,64-8
blr
ALT_FTR_SECTION_END_NESTED_IFCLR(CPU_FTR_POPCNTD, 51)
ALT_FTR_SECTION_END_IFCLR(CPU_FTR_POPCNTB)
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__arch_hweight32)
Would it make sense to only do hweight if *bitmap != ~0ULL ? Would it
make sense to only check for bitflips > bitflips_threshold each 128
bytes or something like that?
Thanks and best regards,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-19 22:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-19 12:13 fsl_ifc_nand: are blank pages protected by ECC? Pavel Machek
2017-04-19 21:18 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-04-19 22:15 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2017-04-19 22:27 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-04-20 11:40 ` Pavel Machek
2017-04-20 12:15 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-04-21 10:51 ` [PATCH] nand_base: optimize checking of erased buffers Pavel Machek
2017-05-17 11:27 ` Mason
2017-05-17 11:39 ` Mason
2017-05-17 11:52 ` Pavel Machek
2017-05-17 12:22 ` [PATCH] fsl_ifc_nand: fix handing of bit flips in erased nand Pavel Machek
2017-05-17 12:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-05-17 13:00 ` Pavel Machek
2017-05-17 13:25 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-05-17 20:03 ` [PATCH] mtd: nand: fsl_ifc: fix handing of bit flips in erased pages Pavel Machek
2017-05-31 20:59 ` [PATCHv2] " Pavel Machek
2017-05-31 22:59 ` Darwin Dingel
2017-06-01 1:09 ` Darwin Dingel
2017-06-01 13:12 ` Pavel Machek
2017-06-01 13:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-06-07 7:31 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-04-21 10:08 ` fsl_ifc_nand: are blank pages protected by ECC? Pavel Machek
2017-04-21 10:12 ` Richard Weinberger
2017-04-21 12:04 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-04-21 13:37 ` Pavel Machek
2017-04-21 13:49 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-04-22 7:01 ` Pavel Machek
2017-04-22 10:40 ` [PATCH] tango_nand.c: fix ecc.stats_corrected in empty flash case Pavel Machek
2017-04-24 8:58 ` Marc Gonzalez
2017-04-24 9:03 ` Pavel Machek
2017-05-02 9:42 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-05-02 11:52 ` Marc Gonzalez
2017-05-02 12:20 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-05-03 20:02 ` Pavel Machek
2017-05-03 20:04 ` Pavel Machek
2017-05-04 8:42 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-05-12 15:34 ` [PATCH] mtd: nand: tango: Update ecc_stats.corrected Marc Gonzalez
2017-05-15 8:56 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-05-15 20:47 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-05-17 12:04 ` [PATCH] tango_nand.c: fix ecc.stats_corrected in empty flash case Pavel Machek
2017-04-23 9:58 ` tango_nand: is logic right in error cases? (was Re: fsl_ifc_nand: are blank pages protected by ECC?) Pavel Machek
2017-04-24 7:12 ` Boris Brezillon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170419221507.GA24914@amd \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=b44839@freescale.com \
--cc=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=cyrille.pitchen@atmel.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
--cc=mark.marshall@omicronenergy.com \
--cc=prabhakar@freescale.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.