From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from aa011-1msr.fastwebnet.it ([62.101.93.131]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1RCTYa-0006SW-SG for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:51:03 +0000 Subject: Re: cfi_cmdset_0002.c SST39VF3201B issue From: Fabio Giovagnini To: angelo In-Reply-To: <4E8DB0A1.5080202@gmail.com> References: <4E8D9F14.4090108@gmail.com> <1317905313.4526.9.camel@AURIO02> <4E8DB0A1.5080202@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:50:49 +0200 Message-ID: <1318067449.1586.2.camel@AURIO02> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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