Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: mtd: amlogic,meson-nand: support fields for boot ROM code

Miquel Raynal
2024-05-07T08:06:08Z

Hi Arseniy,

avkrasnov@salutedevices.com wrote on Tue, 7 May 2024 10:35:51 +0300:

> On 07.05.2024 10:27, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Arseniy,
> >
> > avkrasnov@salutedevices.com wrote on Tue, 7 May 2024 09:53:06 +0300:
> >
> >> On 06.05.2024 16:48, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> >>> Hi Arseniy,
> >>>
> >>> avkrasnov@salutedevices.com wrote on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:51:00 +0300:
> >>>
> >>>> Boot ROM code on Meson requires that some pages on NAND must be written
> >>>> in special mode: "short" ECC mode where each block is 384 bytes and
> >>>> scrambling mode is on.
> >>>
> >>> Ok
> >>>
> >>>> Such pages located with the specified interval within specified offset.
> >>>
> >>> I'm sorry I don't get that sentence.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I mean this (let me draw :) ) :
> >>
> >> [ page 0 ][ page 1 ][ page 2 ][ page 3 ][ page 4 ][ page 5 ][ page 6 ][ page 7 ][ page 8 ][ page 9 ]
> >>
> >> For example, we have 10 pages starting from the beginning of the chip - this is "within specified offset",
> >> e.g. offset is 10. BootROM on axg needs that (for example) every third page must be written in "special"
> >> mode: scrambling is on and ECC is 384 bytes. Such pages are 0, 2, 4, 6, 8. E.g. "specified interval" will
> >> be 3.
> >
> > Shall be 2, no?
>
> yes, starting from 0 - then 2. e.g.
> if (!(page_num % 2))
> boot ROM need this page
>
> >
> >>
> >> So:
> >>
> >> amlogic,boot-pages: 10
> >> amlogic,boot-page-step: 3
> >
> > Ok I get it. Thanks for the explanation. I don't really understand the
> > logic behind it though. Do you know why the bootROM would access only
> > one page over 2 or 3? Is there a default value? Is this configurable?
>
> No, boot rom source is closed, I don't have access to it. I get this logic
> from old version of vendor's uboot - in practice they use non 2 or 3, they
> use hardcoded 128 step value. And amlogic,boot-pages is 1024

Feels like they are trying to use only the first page of each block, no?

That's very weird but I understand better.

Thanks,
Miquèl