Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: raw: qcom_nandc: Don't clear_bam_transaction on READID | From | Sricharan Ramabadhran <> | Date | Fri, 28 Jan 2022 23:20:04 +0530 |
| |
Hi Konrad,
On 1/28/2022 9:55 AM, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote: > Hi Miquel, > > On 1/26/2022 4:12 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote: >> Hi Mani, >> >> mani@kernel.org wrote on Wed, 26 Jan 2022 16:03:16 +0530: >> >>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 11:16:13AM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> miquel.raynal@bootlin.com wrote on Fri, 14 Jan 2022 08:27:18 +0100: >>>>> Hi Konrad, >>>>> >>>>> konrad.dybcio@somainline.org wrote on Thu, 13 Jan 2022 19:44:26 >>>>> +0100: >>>>>> While I have absolutely 0 idea why and how, running >>>>>> clear_bam_transaction >>>>>> when READID is issued makes the DMA totally clog up and refuse to >>>>>> function >>>>>> at all on mdm9607. In fact, it is so bad that all the data gets >>>>>> garbled >>>>>> and after a short while in the nand probe flow, the CPU decides that >>>>>> sepuku is the only option. >>>>>> >>>>>> Removing _READID from the if condition makes it work like a >>>>>> charm, I can >>>>>> read data and mount partitions without a problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> This is totally just an observation which took me an inhumane >>>>>> amount of >>>>>> debug prints to find.. perhaps there's a better reason behind >>>>>> this, but >>>>>> I can't seem to find any answers.. Therefore, this is a BIG RFC! >>>>> I'm adding two people from codeaurora who worked a lot on this >>>>> driver. >>>>> Hopefully they will have an idea :) >>>> Sadre, I've spent a significant amount of time reviewing your patches, >>>> now it's your turn to not take a month to answer to your peers >>>> proposals. >>>> >>>> Please help reviewing this patch. >>> Sorry. I was hoping that Qcom folks would chime in as I don't have >>> any idea >>> about the mdm9607 platform. It could be that the mail server >>> migration from >>> codeaurora to quicinc put a barrier here. >>> >>> Let me ping them internally. >> Oh, ok, I didn't know. Thanks! > > Sorry Miquel, somehow we did not get this email in our inbox. > Thanks to Mani for pinging us, we will test this up today and get > back. > While we could not reproduce this issue on our ipq boards (do not have a mdm9607 right now) and issue does not look any obvious. can you please give the debug logs that you did for the above stage by stage ?
Regards, Sricharan
| |