From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] sdhci no longer detects SD cards on LX2160A
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:42:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190917104200.GJ25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190917081931.GI25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 09:19:31AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:06:12AM +0200, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> > On 16/09/2019 19:15, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> >
> > > The platform has an iommu, which is in pass-through mode, via
> > > arm_smmu.disable_bypass=0.
> >
> > Could be 954a03be033c7cef80ddc232e7cbdb17df735663
> > "iommu/arm-smmu: Break insecure users by disabling bypass by default"
> >
> > Although it had already landed in v5.2
>
> It is not - and the two lines that you quoted above are sufficient
> to negate that as a cause. (Please read the help for the option that
> the commit referrs to.)
>
> In fact, with bypass disabled, the SoC fails due to other masters.
> That's already been discussed privately between myself and Will
> Deacon.
>
> arm_smmu.disable_bypass=0 re-enables bypass mode irrespective of
> the default setting in the Kconfig.
Adding some further debugging, and fixing the existing ADMA debugging
shows:
mmc0: ADMA error: 0x02000000
So this is an ADMA error without the transfer having completed.
mmc0: sdhci: Blk size: 0x00000008 | Blk cnt: 0x00000001
The block size is 8, with one block.
mmc0: sdhci: ADMA Err: 0x00000009 | ADMA Ptr: 0x000000236df1d20c
The ADMA error is a descriptor error at address 0x000000236df1d20c.
The descriptor table contains (including the following entry):
mmc0: sdhci: 236df1d200: DMA 0x000000236d40e980, LEN 0x0008, Attr=0x23
mmc0: sdhci: 236df1d20c: DMA 0x0000000000000000, LEN 0x0000, Attr=0x00
The descriptor table contains one descriptor of 8 bytes, is marked
as the last (END bit set) and is at DMA address 0x236df1d200. The
following descriptor is empty, with VALID=0.
One may be tempted to blame it on the following descriptor, but having
had another example on eMMC while userspace was booting (rootfs on
eMMC):
mmc1: ADMA error: 0x02000000
mmc1: sdhci: Blk size: 0x00000200 | Blk cnt: 0x00000099
mmc1: sdhci: ADMA Err: 0x00000006 | ADMA Ptr: 0x000000236dbfa26c
mmc1: sdhci: 236dbfa200: DMA 0x000000236c25c000, LEN 0x2000, Attr=0x21
mmc1: sdhci: 236dbfa20c: DMA 0x000000236938c000, LEN 0x0000, Attr=0x21
mmc1: sdhci: 236dbfa218: DMA 0x000000236939c000, LEN 0x5000, Attr=0x21
mmc1: sdhci: 236dbfa224: DMA 0x0000002368545000, LEN 0x1000, Attr=0x21
mmc1: sdhci: 236dbfa230: DMA 0x00000023684f1000, LEN 0x1000, Attr=0x21
mmc1: sdhci: 236dbfa23c: DMA 0x0000002368504000, LEN 0x2000, Attr=0x21
mmc1: sdhci: 236dbfa248: DMA 0x0000002368546000, LEN 0x2000, Attr=0x21
mmc1: sdhci: 236dbfa254: DMA 0x00000023684f2000, LEN 0x2000, Attr=0x21
mmc1: sdhci: 236dbfa260: DMA 0x0000002368500000, LEN 0x1000, Attr=0x23
mmc1: sdhci: 236dbfa26c: DMA 0x000000236b55d000, LEN 0x1000, Attr=0x21
... which is interesting for several reasons:
- The ADMA error register indicates a length mismatch error. The
transfer was for 0x99 blocks of 0x200, which is 0x13200 bytes.
Summing the ADMA lengths up to the last descriptor (length=0 is
0x10000 bytes) gives 0x20000 bytes. So the DMA table contains more
bytes than the requested transfer.
- The ADMA error register indicates ST_CADR, which is described as
"This state is never set because do not generate ADMA error in this
state."
- The error descriptor is again after the descriptor with END=1, but
this time has VALID=1.
This _feels_ like a coherency issue, where the SDHCI engine is not
correctly seeing the descriptor table, but then I would have expected
userspace (which is basically debian stable) to fail to boot every
time given that its rootfs is on eMMC.
The other weird thing is if I wind the core MMC code back via:
$ git diff -u 7559d612dff0..v5.3 drivers/mmc/core | patch -p1 -R
and fix the lack of dma_max_pfn(), then SDHCI is more stable - not
completely stable, but way better than plain v5.3. I don't see
much in that diff which would be responsible for this - although it
does seem that hch's DMA changes do make the problem more likely.
(going from 1 in 3 boots with a problem to being not able to boot.)
Note, with v5.2, I _never_ saw any ADMA errors, except if I disabled
bypass mode on the IOMMU (but then I saw global smmu errors right
from when the IOMMU had bypass disabled before MMC was probed - the
reason being is the SoC is not currently setup to have the MMU
bypass mode disabled.)
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-17 10:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-16 17:15 [REGRESSION] sdhci no longer detects SD cards on LX2160A Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-16 22:57 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-17 8:06 ` Marc Gonzalez
2019-09-17 8:19 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-17 10:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin [this message]
2019-09-17 11:16 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-17 11:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-17 12:33 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-17 13:03 ` Robin Murphy
2019-09-17 13:28 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-17 13:07 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-17 13:24 ` Fabio Estevam
2019-09-17 13:33 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-17 13:43 ` Fabio Estevam
2019-09-17 13:51 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-17 13:56 ` Fabio Estevam
[not found] ` <CADRPPNQ-WTY0QC7_bX=N0QeueKve=k0SaMvbjOrByyvzFojz2g@mail.gmail.com>
2019-09-19 4:13 ` Y.b. Lu
2019-09-19 7:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-19 8:15 ` Y.b. Lu
2019-09-19 8:38 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-19 9:22 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-17 13:38 ` Robin Murphy
2019-09-17 13:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-17 14:03 ` Robin Murphy
2019-09-19 9:16 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-19 14:02 ` Robin Murphy
2019-09-19 17:23 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-20 9:55 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-09-17 13:50 ` Will Deacon
2019-09-17 13:55 ` Robin Murphy
2019-09-17 14:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
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=20190917104200.GJ25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk \
--to=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).