Re: [RFC PATCH nand-next 0/2] meson-nand: support for older SoCs

[Liang Yang <liang.yang@amlogic.com>]

Hi Martin and Miquel,

On 2019/3/7 21:09, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> wrote on Tue,
> 5 Mar 2019 23:12:51 +0100:
> 
>> Hi Liang,
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 5:55 AM Liang Yang <liang.yang@amlogic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Martin,
>>>
>>> On 2019/3/2 2:29, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
>>>> Hi Liang,
>>>>
>>>> I am trying to add support for older SoCs to the meson-nand driver.
>>>> Back when the driver was in development I used an early revision (of
>>>> your driver) and did some modifications to make it work on older SoCs.
>>>>
>>>> Now that the driver is upstream I wanted to give it another try and
>>>> make a real patch out of it. Unfortunately it's not working anymore.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I know the NFC IP block revision on GXL is similar (or even
>>>> the same?) as on all older SoCs. As far as I can tell only the clock
>>>> setup is different on the older SoCs (which have a dedicated NAND
>>>> clock):
>>>> - we don't need the "amlogic,mmc-syscon" property on the older SoCs
>>>>     because we don't need to setup any muxing (common clock framework
>>>>     will do everything for us)
>>>> - "rx" and "tx" clocks don't exist
>>>> - I could not find any other differences between Meson8, Meson8b,
>>>>     Meson8m2, GXBB and GXL
>>>>   
>>> That is right. the serials NFC is almost the same except:
>>> 1) The clock control and source that M8-serials are not share with EMMC.
>>> 2) The base register address
>>> 3) DMA encryption option which we don't care on NFC driver.
>> great, thank you for confirming this!
>>
>>>> In this series I'm sending two patches which add support for the older
>>>> SoCs.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately these patches are currently not working for me (hence the
>>>> "RFC" prefix). I get a (strange) crash which is triggered by the
>>>> kzalloc() in meson_nfc_read_buf() - see below for more details.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please help me on this one? I'd like to know whether:
>>>> - the meson-nand driver works for you on GXL or AXG on linux-next?
>>>>     (I was running these patches on top of next-20190301 on my M8S
>>>>     board which uses a 32-bit Meson8m2 SoC. I don't have any board using
>>>>     a GXL SoC which also has NAND)
>>> Yes, it works on AXG platform using a MXIC slc nand flash(MX30LF4G); but
>>> i an not sure it runs the same flow with yours. because i see the print
>>> "Counld not find a valid ONFI parameter page, ...." in yours. i will try
>>> to reproduce it on AXG(i don't have a M8 platform now).
>> I'm looking forward to hear about the test results on your AXG boards
>> for reference: my board has a SK Hynix H27UCG8T2B (ID bytes: 0xad 0xde
>> 0x94 0xeb 0x74 0x44, 20nm MLC)
>> I have another board (where I haven't tested the NFC driver yet) with
>> a SK Hynix H27UCG8T2E (ID bytes: 0xad 0xde 0x14 0xa7 0x42 0x4a, 1Ynm
>> MLC). if it helps with your analysis I can test on that board as well
> 
> Liang, you just have to fake the output of the ONFI page detection and
> you will probably run into this error which will then be easy to
> reproduce.
> 
i don't reproduce it by using a SK Hynix nand flash H27UCG8T2E on gxl 
platform. it runs well.
[......]
[    0.977127] loop: module loaded
[    0.998625] Could not find a valid ONFI parameter page, trying 
bit-wise majority to recover it
[    1.001619] ONFI parameter recovery failed, aborting
[    1.006684] Could not find valid JEDEC parameter page; aborting
[    1.012391] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0xad, Chip ID: 0xde
[    1.018660] nand: Hynix NAND 8GiB 3,3V 8-bit
[    1.022885] nand: 8192 MiB, MLC, erase size: 4096 KiB, page size: 
16384, OOB size: 1664
[    1.047033] Bad block table not found for chip 0
[    1.054950] Bad block table not found for chip 0
[    1.054970] Scanning device for bad blocks
[    1.522664] random: fast init done
[    4.893731] Bad eraseblock 1985 at 0x0001f07fc000
[    5.020637] Bad block table written to 0x0001ffc00000, version 0x01
[    5.028258] Bad block table written to 0x0001ff800000, version 0x01
[    5.029905] 5 fixed-partitions partitions found on MTD device 
d0074800.nfc
[    5.035714] Creating 5 MTD partitions on "d0074800.nfc":
[......]

Martin, Now i am not sure whether NFC driver leads to kernel panic when
calling kmem_cache_alloc_trace.

> .
>