Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH nand-next 0/2] meson-nand: support for older SoCs | From | Liang Yang <> | Date | Tue, 12 Mar 2019 17:06:17 +0800 |
| |
Hi Martin and Miquel,
On 2019/3/7 21:09, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hello, > > Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> wrote on Tue, > 5 Mar 2019 23:12:51 +0100: > >> Hi Liang, >> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 5:55 AM Liang Yang <liang.yang@amlogic.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Martin, >>> >>> On 2019/3/2 2:29, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: >>>> Hi Liang, >>>> >>>> I am trying to add support for older SoCs to the meson-nand driver. >>>> Back when the driver was in development I used an early revision (of >>>> your driver) and did some modifications to make it work on older SoCs. >>>> >>>> Now that the driver is upstream I wanted to give it another try and >>>> make a real patch out of it. Unfortunately it's not working anymore. >>>> >>>> As far as I know the NFC IP block revision on GXL is similar (or even >>>> the same?) as on all older SoCs. As far as I can tell only the clock >>>> setup is different on the older SoCs (which have a dedicated NAND >>>> clock): >>>> - we don't need the "amlogic,mmc-syscon" property on the older SoCs >>>> because we don't need to setup any muxing (common clock framework >>>> will do everything for us) >>>> - "rx" and "tx" clocks don't exist >>>> - I could not find any other differences between Meson8, Meson8b, >>>> Meson8m2, GXBB and GXL >>>> >>> That is right. the serials NFC is almost the same except: >>> 1) The clock control and source that M8-serials are not share with EMMC. >>> 2) The base register address >>> 3) DMA encryption option which we don't care on NFC driver. >> great, thank you for confirming this! >> >>>> In this series I'm sending two patches which add support for the older >>>> SoCs. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately these patches are currently not working for me (hence the >>>> "RFC" prefix). I get a (strange) crash which is triggered by the >>>> kzalloc() in meson_nfc_read_buf() - see below for more details. >>>> >>>> Can you please help me on this one? I'd like to know whether: >>>> - the meson-nand driver works for you on GXL or AXG on linux-next? >>>> (I was running these patches on top of next-20190301 on my M8S >>>> board which uses a 32-bit Meson8m2 SoC. I don't have any board using >>>> a GXL SoC which also has NAND) >>> Yes, it works on AXG platform using a MXIC slc nand flash(MX30LF4G); but >>> i an not sure it runs the same flow with yours. because i see the print >>> "Counld not find a valid ONFI parameter page, ...." in yours. i will try >>> to reproduce it on AXG(i don't have a M8 platform now). >> I'm looking forward to hear about the test results on your AXG boards >> for reference: my board has a SK Hynix H27UCG8T2B (ID bytes: 0xad 0xde >> 0x94 0xeb 0x74 0x44, 20nm MLC) >> I have another board (where I haven't tested the NFC driver yet) with >> a SK Hynix H27UCG8T2E (ID bytes: 0xad 0xde 0x14 0xa7 0x42 0x4a, 1Ynm >> MLC). if it helps with your analysis I can test on that board as well > > Liang, you just have to fake the output of the ONFI page detection and > you will probably run into this error which will then be easy to > reproduce. > i don't reproduce it by using a SK Hynix nand flash H27UCG8T2E on gxl platform. it runs well. [......] [ 0.977127] loop: module loaded [ 0.998625] Could not find a valid ONFI parameter page, trying bit-wise majority to recover it [ 1.001619] ONFI parameter recovery failed, aborting [ 1.006684] Could not find valid JEDEC parameter page; aborting [ 1.012391] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0xad, Chip ID: 0xde [ 1.018660] nand: Hynix NAND 8GiB 3,3V 8-bit [ 1.022885] nand: 8192 MiB, MLC, erase size: 4096 KiB, page size: 16384, OOB size: 1664 [ 1.047033] Bad block table not found for chip 0 [ 1.054950] Bad block table not found for chip 0 [ 1.054970] Scanning device for bad blocks [ 1.522664] random: fast init done [ 4.893731] Bad eraseblock 1985 at 0x0001f07fc000 [ 5.020637] Bad block table written to 0x0001ffc00000, version 0x01 [ 5.028258] Bad block table written to 0x0001ff800000, version 0x01 [ 5.029905] 5 fixed-partitions partitions found on MTD device d0074800.nfc [ 5.035714] Creating 5 MTD partitions on "d0074800.nfc": [......]
Martin, Now i am not sure whether NFC driver leads to kernel panic when calling kmem_cache_alloc_trace.
> . >
| |