From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B34C10F13 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:29:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7975220850 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:29:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726957AbfDKJ3t (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 05:29:49 -0400 Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk ([46.235.227.227]:57830 "EHLO bhuna.collabora.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726106AbfDKJ3s (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 05:29:48 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e0a:2c:6930:5cf4:84a1:2763:fe0d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bbrezillon) by bhuna.collabora.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A106260764; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 10:29:46 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:29:43 +0200 From: Boris Brezillon To: masonccyang@mxic.com.tw Cc: bbrezillon@kernel.org, computersforpeace@gmail.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, juliensu@mxic.com.tw, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, marek.vasut@gmail.com, miquel.raynal@bootlin.com, richard@nod.at, zhengxunli@mxic.com.tw Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: Add Macronix NAND read retry and randomizer support Message-ID: <20190411112943.1fecfa69@collabora.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1554780172-23111-1-git-send-email-masonccyang@mxic.com.tw> <20190409090427.22de9917@collabora.com> <20190409114701.744c2c8c@collabora.com> <20190410092258.332ef399@collabora.com> <20190411085353.4c1af008@collabora.com> Organization: Collabora X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 17:24:09 +0800 masonccyang@mxic.com.tw wrote: > Hi Boris, > > > > > > > > Subject > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: Add Macronix NAND read retry and > > > randomizer > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 17:35:39 +0800 > > > > > > masonccyang@mxic.com.tw wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > +static const struct kobj_attribute sysfs_mxic_nand = > > > > > > > > > + __ATTR(nand_random, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, > > > > > > > > > + mxic_nand_rand_type_show, > > > > > > > > > + mxic_nand_rand_type_store); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, we don't want to expose that through a sysfs file, > > > especially > > > > > since > > > > > > > > changing the randomizer config means making the NAND > unreadable > > > for > > > > > > > > those that have used it before the change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our on-die randomizer is still readable from user after the > > > function > > > > > > > is enabled. > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the memory is still readable no matter the randomizer > > > state. > > > > > > Not sure how that's possible, but okay. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This randomizer is just like a internal memory cell > > > > > > > reliability enhanced. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why don't you enable it by default then? > > > > > > > > > > The penalty of randomizer is read/write performance down. > > > > > i.e,. tPROG 300 us to 340 us (randomizer enable) > > > > > therefore, disable it by default. > > > > > > > > I'm a bit puzzled. On the NAND I've seen that required data > > > > randomization it's not something you'd want to disable as this > implied > > > > poor data retention. What's the use case here? Are we talking about > SLC > > > > or MLC NANDs? Should we enable this feature once we start seeing > that > > > > the NAND starts being less reliable (basically when read-retry > happens > > > > more often)? I really think this is something you should decide > kernel > > > > side, because users have no clue when it's appropriate to switch > this > > > > feature on/off. > > > > > > > > > > It's SLC NAND and seems to has nothing to do with read-retry happens. > > > later, I will get more information for your concerns. > > > > Well, this feature is optional, and can be enabled to improve > > reliability. Sounds like a good reason to enable it when your NAND > > device starts showing reliability issues, and the number of read_retry > > attempts reflects the wear level pretty well. Alternatively, you could > > use the number of bitflips, but, in any case, don't expect the user to > > take this decision, because almost nobody knows what the randomizer > > is needed for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It could be enable at any time with OTP bit function and > that's > > > why > > > > > > > we patch it by sys-fs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, but that's not a good reason to expose that through > sysfs. > > > > > > > > > > Any good way to expose randomizer function for user ? > > > > > > > > Don't expose it :P. > > > > > > oh, okay, I will remove sys-fs randomizer. > > > > > > Is it OK to keep set/get features for randomizer ? > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to have dead code, so no. But I'm pretty > > sure we'll find a way to use/expose this feature. > > okay, great! > Looking forward to hearing this feature use/expose. But for that to happen we are waiting for inputs about when this is supposed to be used...