Re: DENALI: can't detect NAND chip

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 22:41:40 +0200
Richard Weinberger <richard@sigma-star.at> wrote:

> Am Montag, 4. Juni 2018, 22:34:53 CEST schrieb Boris Brezillon:
> > > I got access to that board and did initial debugging of the problem.
> > > 
> > > The problem seems to be that after your rework the NAND timings get
> > > derived from the NAND clock.
> > > When I make denali_setup_data_interface() a NOP, the NAND is being
> > > detected and works.
> > > 
> > > Can it be that the function does not calculate the timings correctly
> > > in all cases?
> > > Please see the following debug output for good and bad case.
> > > 
> > > bad case:
> > > [    0.946757] XXX: denali clk rate: 0x2faf080
> > > [    0.950932] XXX: denali clk phase: 0x0
> > > [    0.954671] XXX: denali clk accuracy: 0x0
> > > [    0.958920] denali-nand-dt ff900000.nand: clk_x_rate: 0x2faf080
> > > [    0.964846] denali-nand-dt ff900000.nand: Dump timing register values:
> > > [    0.964846] acc_clks: 2, re_2_we: 10, re_2_re: 10
> > > [    0.964846] we_2_re: 25, addr_2_data: 20, rdwr_en_lo_cnt: 4
> > > [    0.964846] rdwr_en_hi_cnt: 2, cs_setup_cnt: 3
> > > 
> > > good case:
> > > [    0.961061] XXX: denali clk rate: 0x2faf080
> > > [    0.965231] XXX: denali clk phase: 0x0
> > > [    0.968967] XXX: denali clk accuracy: 0x0
> > > [    0.973031] denali-nand-dt ff900000.nand: Dump timing register values:
> > > [    0.973031] acc_clks: 4, re_2_we: 20, re_2_re: 20
> > > [    0.973031] we_2_re: 12, addr_2_data: 14, rdwr_en_lo_cnt: 2
> > > [    0.973031] rdwr_en_hi_cnt: 2, cs_setup_cnt: 2
> > > 
> > > Does this ring a bell?
> > >   
> > 
> > Could it be that clk_get_rate() returns an invalid value? Looks like
> > all good timings are almost equal to bad timings multiplied by 2, so
> > maybe the ->recalc_rate() method of clk driver returns freq / 2 instead
> > of freq.  
> 
> According to the datasheet, the NAND clock rate should be 50Mhz, which is what
> is returned in both cases.
> So this does not really look invalid to me. :)

Did you try to put a scope on the RE or WE pin? The x2 factor looks too
perfect to be just a coincidence.