Re: [PATCH] memory: renesas-rpc-if: Avoid unaligned bus access for HyperFlash

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2021-09-24T11:12:39Z

On 22/09/2021 20:48, Andrew Gabbasov wrote:
> HyperFlash devices in Renesas SoCs use 2-bytes addressing, according
> to HW manual paragraph 62.3.3 (which officially describes Serial Flash
> access, but seems to be applicable to HyperFlash too). And 1-byte bus
> read operations to 2-bytes unaligned addresses in external address space
> read mode work incorrectly (returns the other byte from the same word).
>
> Function memcpy_fromio(), used by the driver to read data from the bus,
> in ARM64 architecture (to which Renesas cores belong) uses 8-bytes
> bus accesses for appropriate aligned addresses, and 1-bytes accesses
> for other addresses. This results in incorrect data read from HyperFlash
> in unaligned cases.
>
> This issue can be reproduced using something like the following commands
> (where mtd1 is a parition on Hyperflash storage, defined properly
> in a device tree):
>
> [Correct fragment, read from Hyperflash]
>
> root@rcar-gen3:~# dd if=/dev/mtd1 of=/tmp/zz bs=32 count=1
> 1+0 records in
> 1+0 records out
> root@rcar-gen3:~# hexdump -C /tmp/zz
> 00000000 f4 03 00 aa f5 03 01 aa f6 03 02 aa f7 03 03 aa |................|
> 00000010 00 00 80 d2 40 20 18 d5 00 06 81 d2 a0 18 a6 f2 |....@ ..........|
> 00000020
>
> [Incorrect read of the same fragment: see the difference at offsets 8-11]
>
> root@rcar-gen3:~# dd if=/dev/mtd1 of=/tmp/zz bs=12 count=1
> 1+0 records in
> 1+0 records out
> root@rcar-gen3:~# hexdump -C /tmp/zz
> 00000000 f4 03 00 aa f5 03 01 aa 03 03 aa aa |............|
> 0000000c
>
> Fix this issue by creating a local replacement of the copying function,
> that performs only properly aligned bus accesses, and is used for reading
> from HyperFlash.
>
> Fixes: ca7d8b980b67f ("memory: add Renesas RPC-IF driver")
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Gabbasov <andrew_gabbasov@mentor.com>
> ---
> drivers/memory/renesas-rpc-if.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>

Thanks for the patch.

Please rebase and test on a recent Linux kernel. This looks like work on
something slightly older or stable kernel, since you Cc not the address
from maintainers.

The patch came slightly after Wolfram's and I wonder whether you hit
similar issue:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210922091007.5516-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com/

Best regards,
Krzysztof