* cfi_cmdset_0002.c SST39VF3201B issue
@ 2011-10-06 12:29 angelo
2011-10-06 12:48 ` Fabio Giovagnini
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: angelo @ 2011-10-06 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; +Cc: uClinux development list
Dear all,
like me some other users had issues with this chip and jffs2.
From time to time users asks why they get errors trying to use jffs2
with this chip.
This chip, from the datasheet, allows to erase 4KB "sectors" or 64KB
"blocks", replying to cfi queries with a "setcor" erase size and a
"block" erase size.
I can be wrong of course, but this is what i figured out:
1) fixup decision
Someone of you decided to fix up this SST39VF3201 in this way:
static void fixup_old_sst_eraseregion(struct mtd_info *mtd)
{
struct map_info *map = mtd->priv;
struct cfi_private *cfi = map->fldrv_priv;
/*
* These flashes report two seperate eraseblock regions based on the
* sector_erase-size and block_erase-size, although they both
operate on the
* same memory. This is not allowed according to CFI, so we just
pick the
* sector_erase-size.
*/
cfi->cfiq->NumEraseRegions = 1;
}
Of course, in this way, deciding 0x1000 (sector-size) is the one to use,
jffs2 cannot be used safely, since
minimal data block is 4Kb + some hdr bytes. Wasn't better fixup to
"block" size (64K) ?
2) after fixup decision, when jffs2 asks to erase a block to
cfi_cmdset_0002.c, cfi driver seems to erase wrongly a 64K block.
This is what happen in detail:
jffs erase.c, to erase a block does: mtd->erase(), with a len
mtd->erasesize (4KB).
mtd->erase() is calls cfi_amdstd_erase_varsize ...
finally, do_erase_oneblock is called, where:
cfi_send_gen_cmd(0xAA, cfi->addr_unlock1, chip->start, map, cfi,
cfi->device_type, NULL);
cfi_send_gen_cmd(0x55, cfi->addr_unlock2, chip->start, map, cfi,
cfi->device_type, NULL);
cfi_send_gen_cmd(0x80, cfi->addr_unlock1, chip->start, map, cfi,
cfi->device_type, NULL);
cfi_send_gen_cmd(0xAA, cfi->addr_unlock1, chip->start, map, cfi,
cfi->device_type, NULL);
cfi_send_gen_cmd(0x55, cfi->addr_unlock2, chip->start, map, cfi,
cfi->device_type, NULL);
map_write(map, CMD(0x30), adr);
but this chip uses 0x30 cmd to erase a 64 KB block, and 0x50 to erase a
sector.
Please let me know if i am in the right direction, so i can think about
a patch that allows
jffs2 to be used with native hw 64KB block erasesize.
Regards
Angelo Dureghello
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: cfi_cmdset_0002.c SST39VF3201B issue
2011-10-06 12:29 cfi_cmdset_0002.c SST39VF3201B issue angelo
@ 2011-10-06 12:48 ` Fabio Giovagnini
2011-10-06 14:23 ` angelo
[not found] ` <4E8DB0A1.5080202@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Fabio Giovagnini @ 2011-10-06 12:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: angelo; +Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, uClinux development list
I would try to keep the 4kBi blocks.
regards
Il giorno gio, 06/10/2011 alle 14.29 +0200, angelo ha scritto:
> Dear all,
>
> like me some other users had issues with this chip and jffs2.
>
> From time to time users asks why they get errors trying to use jffs2
> with this chip.
>
> This chip, from the datasheet, allows to erase 4KB "sectors" or 64KB
> "blocks", replying to cfi queries with a "setcor" erase size and a
> "block" erase size.
>
> I can be wrong of course, but this is what i figured out:
>
>
> 1) fixup decision
>
> Someone of you decided to fix up this SST39VF3201 in this way:
>
> static void fixup_old_sst_eraseregion(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> {
> struct map_info *map = mtd->priv;
> struct cfi_private *cfi = map->fldrv_priv;
>
> /*
> * These flashes report two seperate eraseblock regions based on the
> * sector_erase-size and block_erase-size, although they both
> operate on the
> * same memory. This is not allowed according to CFI, so we just
> pick the
> * sector_erase-size.
> */
> cfi->cfiq->NumEraseRegions = 1;
> }
>
> Of course, in this way, deciding 0x1000 (sector-size) is the one to use,
> jffs2 cannot be used safely, since
> minimal data block is 4Kb + some hdr bytes. Wasn't better fixup to
> "block" size (64K) ?
>
>
> 2) after fixup decision, when jffs2 asks to erase a block to
> cfi_cmdset_0002.c, cfi driver seems to erase wrongly a 64K block.
> This is what happen in detail:
> jffs erase.c, to erase a block does: mtd->erase(), with a len
> mtd->erasesize (4KB).
> mtd->erase() is calls cfi_amdstd_erase_varsize ...
> finally, do_erase_oneblock is called, where:
>
> cfi_send_gen_cmd(0xAA, cfi->addr_unlock1, chip->start, map, cfi,
> cfi->device_type, NULL);
> cfi_send_gen_cmd(0x55, cfi->addr_unlock2, chip->start, map, cfi,
> cfi->device_type, NULL);
> cfi_send_gen_cmd(0x80, cfi->addr_unlock1, chip->start, map, cfi,
> cfi->device_type, NULL);
> cfi_send_gen_cmd(0xAA, cfi->addr_unlock1, chip->start, map, cfi,
> cfi->device_type, NULL);
> cfi_send_gen_cmd(0x55, cfi->addr_unlock2, chip->start, map, cfi,
> cfi->device_type, NULL);
> map_write(map, CMD(0x30), adr);
>
> but this chip uses 0x30 cmd to erase a 64 KB block, and 0x50 to erase a
> sector.
>
> Please let me know if i am in the right direction, so i can think about
> a patch that allows
> jffs2 to be used with native hw 64KB block erasesize.
>
> Regards
> Angelo Dureghello
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
--
Fabio Giovagnini
Aurion s.r.l.
P.iva 00885711200
cell. +39.335.8350919
Tel. +39.051.594.78.24
Fax. +39 051.082.14.49
skype: aurion.giovagnini
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: cfi_cmdset_0002.c SST39VF3201B issue
2011-10-06 12:48 ` Fabio Giovagnini
@ 2011-10-06 14:23 ` angelo
[not found] ` <4E8DB0A1.5080202@gmail.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: angelo @ 2011-10-06 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; +Cc: Fabio Giovagnini
Hi,
i was working with main line kernel (2.6.36.2), and i have seen that the
issue has been fixed for example in 2.6.38,
to erase really a 4KB sector using flash cmd 0x50. This is probably why
jffs2 "seems" to work, with the patch in mkfs.jffs2.
But, as already pointed out, jffs2 could have problems, due to the fact
the minimal block size is 4KB + some bytes.
For who is interested, i patched the kernel 2.6.36.2 in my own way,
using 64KB physical erasesize and JFFS2 works great:
in cfi_cmdset_0002.c
static void fixup_old_sst_eraseregion(struct mtd_info *mtd)
{
struct map_info *map = mtd->priv;
struct cfi_private *cfi = map->fldrv_priv;
/*
* These flashes report two seperate eraseblock regions based on the
* sector_erase-size and block_erase-size, although they both
operate on the
* same memory. This is not allowed according to CFI, so we just
pick the
* sector_erase-size.
*/
+ cfi->cfiq->EraseRegionInfo[0] = cfi->cfiq->EraseRegionInfo[1];
+
cfi->cfiq->NumEraseRegions = 1;
}
Regards,
Angelo Dureghello
On 06/10/2011 14:48, Fabio Giovagnini wrote:
> I would try to keep the 4kBi blocks.
>
>
> regards
>
>
>
> Il giorno gio, 06/10/2011 alle 14.29 +0200, angelo ha scritto:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> like me some other users had issues with this chip and jffs2.
>>
>> From time to time users asks why they get errors trying to use jffs2
>> with this chip.
>>
>> This chip, from the datasheet, allows to erase 4KB "sectors" or 64KB
>> "blocks", replying to cfi queries with a "setcor" erase size and a
>> "block" erase size.
>>
>> I can be wrong of course, but this is what i figured out:
>>
>>
>> 1) fixup decision
>>
>> Someone of you decided to fix up this SST39VF3201 in this way:
>>
>> static void fixup_old_sst_eraseregion(struct mtd_info *mtd)
>> {
>> struct map_info *map = mtd->priv;
>> struct cfi_private *cfi = map->fldrv_priv;
>>
>> /*
>> * These flashes report two seperate eraseblock regions based on the
>> * sector_erase-size and block_erase-size, although they both
>> operate on the
>> * same memory. This is not allowed according to CFI, so we just
>> pick the
>> * sector_erase-size.
>> */
>> cfi->cfiq->NumEraseRegions = 1;
>> }
>>
>> Of course, in this way, deciding 0x1000 (sector-size) is the one to use,
>> jffs2 cannot be used safely, since
>> minimal data block is 4Kb + some hdr bytes. Wasn't better fixup to
>> "block" size (64K) ?
>>
>>
>> 2) after fixup decision, when jffs2 asks to erase a block to
>> cfi_cmdset_0002.c, cfi driver seems to erase wrongly a 64K block.
>> This is what happen in detail:
>> jffs erase.c, to erase a block does: mtd->erase(), with a len
>> mtd->erasesize (4KB).
>> mtd->erase() is calls cfi_amdstd_erase_varsize ...
>> finally, do_erase_oneblock is called, where:
>>
>> cfi_send_gen_cmd(0xAA, cfi->addr_unlock1, chip->start, map, cfi,
>> cfi->device_type, NULL);
>> cfi_send_gen_cmd(0x55, cfi->addr_unlock2, chip->start, map, cfi,
>> cfi->device_type, NULL);
>> cfi_send_gen_cmd(0x80, cfi->addr_unlock1, chip->start, map, cfi,
>> cfi->device_type, NULL);
>> cfi_send_gen_cmd(0xAA, cfi->addr_unlock1, chip->start, map, cfi,
>> cfi->device_type, NULL);
>> cfi_send_gen_cmd(0x55, cfi->addr_unlock2, chip->start, map, cfi,
>> cfi->device_type, NULL);
>> map_write(map, CMD(0x30), adr);
>>
>> but this chip uses 0x30 cmd to erase a 64 KB block, and 0x50 to erase a
>> sector.
>>
>> Please let me know if i am in the right direction, so i can think about
>> a patch that allows
>> jffs2 to be used with native hw 64KB block erasesize.
>>
>> Regards
>> Angelo Dureghello
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: cfi_cmdset_0002.c SST39VF3201B issue
[not found] ` <4E8DB0A1.5080202@gmail.com>
@ 2011-10-08 9:50 ` Fabio Giovagnini
2011-10-14 9:09 ` Artem Bityutskiy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Fabio Giovagnini @ 2011-10-08 9:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: angelo; +Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Hi Angelo,
I have worked with 2.6.38 and I have used 0x50 command and modification
into mkfs.jffs2 utility in order to accomplish a 4k fs sector size.
It is working and I think that in a not so huge memory support a 4k
sector allows a better management rather than 64k sector.
Regards
Il giorno gio, 06/10/2011 alle 15.44 +0200, angelo ha scritto:
> Hi Giovanni,
>
> i can be wrong, but i think this is a bug of the cfi command set, and
> should be fixed in the best way from the maintainer.
> This because mtd->regions[x].erasesize is set to 4KiB but everytime an
> mtd->erase is requested, a block of 64KB is erased.
>
> Unfortunately, creating "virtual" 32 or 64KB" erasesizes to allows
> jffs2 to work is not convenient and also quite long job.
>
> I will try the simplest patch for now (using native 64Kblocks as many
> other nor flash) and will post back shortly if the fix work, almost
> for jffs2.
>
> Regards,
> angelo
>
>
>
>
> On 06/10/2011 14:48, Fabio Giovagnini wrote:
> > I would try to keep the 4kBi blocks.
> >
> >
> > regards
> >
> >
> >
> > Il giorno gio, 06/10/2011 alle 14.29 +0200, angelo ha scritto:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > like me some other users had issues with this chip and jffs2.
> > >
> > > From time to time users asks why they get errors trying to use jffs2
> > > with this chip.
> > >
> > > This chip, from the datasheet, allows to erase 4KB "sectors" or 64KB
> > > "blocks", replying to cfi queries with a "setcor" erase size and a
> > > "block" erase size.
> > >
> > > I can be wrong of course, but this is what i figured out:
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) fixup decision
> > >
> > > Someone of you decided to fix up this SST39VF3201 in this way:
> > >
> > > static void fixup_old_sst_eraseregion(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> > > {
> > > struct map_info *map = mtd->priv;
> > > struct cfi_private *cfi = map->fldrv_priv;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * These flashes report two seperate eraseblock regions based on the
> > > * sector_erase-size and block_erase-size, although they both
> > > operate on the
> > > * same memory. This is not allowed according to CFI, so we just
> > > pick the
> > > * sector_erase-size.
> > > */
> > > cfi->cfiq->NumEraseRegions = 1;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Of course, in this way, deciding 0x1000 (sector-size) is the one to use,
> > > jffs2 cannot be used safely, since
> > > minimal data block is 4Kb + some hdr bytes. Wasn't better fixup to
> > > "block" size (64K) ?
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) after fixup decision, when jffs2 asks to erase a block to
> > > cfi_cmdset_0002.c, cfi driver seems to erase wrongly a 64K block.
> > > This is what happen in detail:
> > > jffs erase.c, to erase a block does: mtd->erase(), with a len
> > > mtd->erasesize (4KB).
> > > mtd->erase() is calls cfi_amdstd_erase_varsize ...
> > > finally, do_erase_oneblock is called, where:
> > >
> > > cfi_send_gen_cmd(0xAA, cfi->addr_unlock1, chip->start, map, cfi,
> > > cfi->device_type, NULL);
> > > cfi_send_gen_cmd(0x55, cfi->addr_unlock2, chip->start, map, cfi,
> > > cfi->device_type, NULL);
> > > cfi_send_gen_cmd(0x80, cfi->addr_unlock1, chip->start, map, cfi,
> > > cfi->device_type, NULL);
> > > cfi_send_gen_cmd(0xAA, cfi->addr_unlock1, chip->start, map, cfi,
> > > cfi->device_type, NULL);
> > > cfi_send_gen_cmd(0x55, cfi->addr_unlock2, chip->start, map, cfi,
> > > cfi->device_type, NULL);
> > > map_write(map, CMD(0x30), adr);
> > >
> > > but this chip uses 0x30 cmd to erase a 64 KB block, and 0x50 to erase a
> > > sector.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if i am in the right direction, so i can think about
> > > a patch that allows
> > > jffs2 to be used with native hw 64KB block erasesize.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Angelo Dureghello
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________
> > > Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
> > >
>
>
> --
> .:.:.SYSAM.:.:.
>
> di Angelo Dureghello
> via San Nazario 149
> 34151, Trieste, Italy
> ++39 340 7631990
> www.sysam.it
>
>
--
Fabio Giovagnini
Aurion s.r.l.
P.iva 00885711200
cell. +39.335.8350919
Tel. +39.051.594.78.24
Fax. +39 051.082.14.49
skype: aurion.giovagnini
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: cfi_cmdset_0002.c SST39VF3201B issue
2011-10-08 9:50 ` Fabio Giovagnini
@ 2011-10-14 9:09 ` Artem Bityutskiy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Artem Bityutskiy @ 2011-10-14 9:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fabio Giovagnini; +Cc: angelo, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
On Sat, 2011-10-08 at 11:50 +0200, Fabio Giovagnini wrote:
> Hi Angelo,
> I have worked with 2.6.38 and I have used 0x50 command and modification
> into mkfs.jffs2 utility in order to accomplish a 4k fs sector size.
> It is working and I think that in a not so huge memory support a 4k
> sector allows a better management rather than 64k sector.
4KiB is too small for JFFS2. If it works for you, it is only because you
are lucky or you did not stress it well enough. Also, small eraseblocks
just make JFFS2 much slower than it could be.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-10-14 9:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-10-06 12:29 cfi_cmdset_0002.c SST39VF3201B issue angelo
2011-10-06 12:48 ` Fabio Giovagnini
2011-10-06 14:23 ` angelo
[not found] ` <4E8DB0A1.5080202@gmail.com>
2011-10-08 9:50 ` Fabio Giovagnini
2011-10-14 9:09 ` Artem Bityutskiy
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox